Commnr.,Customs & Cent.Excise ... vs M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of valuation of excisable goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, determining that the place of removal for the purpose of excise duty was the buyer's premises, not the factory gate. The Court upheld the CESTAT's decision that the respondent was not liable for the differential excise duty as the agreements indicated that the delivery of goods occurred at the project sites. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's ruling.