JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted herein below. 2. The petitioner being a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 is indulged in business of exporting man made yarn to countries outside India. It sought rebate of excise duty on 7 different consignments exported by it in the year 2016. The rebate sought included post removal charges from the factory gate to the Port of Export. After transporting the goods in question, the writ petitioner submitted separate rebate claims to the Adjudicating Authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Chittorgarh. While filing the rebate applications, the petitioner referred to the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur in Appeal No.46to66(AK)CE/JPR/2016 and prayed that the rebate claim be processed without deducting the freight/ insurance/ THC from FOB value. The bone of contention between the parties was as to whether the place of removal should be considered as the factory gate or the Port of Export. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the rebate claims of the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2016. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, while accepting the application, relied on the earlier order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.03.2016 in the case of the petitioner and held that the Port of Export was to be considered as the place of removal and accordingly, the rebate claims were accepted and a sum of Rs.13,00,485/-was sanctioned as rebate in favour of the petitioner alongwith credit of Rs.5,944/-in the CENVAT Credit account. Aggrieved of the order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Department preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Jodhpur which came to be rejected by order dated 26.10.2017. While rejecting the appeals, the Appellate Authority referred to the order passed by the Revisionary Authority of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India whereby, revision involving identical issue was dismissed observing that in case of export, the place of removal would be the Port of Export and not the factory gate. It was held that the ‘sale’ is completed when the consignment is handed overto the buyer. Hence, in case of export, sale would be concluded when the goods are handed over to the shipping line at the port. It was held that the ‘sale’ is completed when the consignment is handed overto the buyer. Hence, in case of export, sale would be concluded when the goods are handed over to the shipping line at the port. The Appellate Authority also relied upon the Board’s circular dated 28.02.2015 whereby, it was clarified/directed that in case of clearance of goods for export by manufacturer exporter, the place of removal would be the Port/ICD/CFS. Aggrieved by the rejection of its appeals by order dated 26.10.2017, the Department preferred Revision Application to the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act which have been accepted by the order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-P/1) which is assailed in this writ petition preferred by the petitioner Company under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri Sanjeev Johari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shubhankar Johari, Advocate representing the petitioner, drew the Court’s attention to the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited reported in (2015)8 SCC 229 and urged that the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgment wherein, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has conclusively laid down that the determinative factor regarding transfer of ownership of goods from seller to buyer is to be examined by applying provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1930’). All charges incurred prior to transfer of ownership of goods to the buyer are to be included in valuation. He submitted that the circular dated 28.02.2015 makes it very clear that in cases of export, the transfer of property takes place at the port where the goods are delivered by the exporter, the shipping bill is filed and as such, place of removal would be the Port. He argued that the view taken by the Revisionary Authority that the sale was concluded the moment the goods left the factory, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1930; the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited (supra) and the circulars dated 28.02.2015 and 08.06.2018 issued by the Board governing the field. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Rajendra Saraswat representing the Department, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Rajendra Saraswat representing the Department, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He urged that the circulars of 2015 and 2018 do not help the petitioner in any manner because the same deal with CENVAT Credit whereas, the issue at hand is regarding rebate on excise duty. He submitted that the Revisionary Authority, duly applied its mind to the facts and circumstances and was absolutely justified in reversing the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority because the place of removal of the exported goods would undoubtedly be the factory gate and the transactional value of the exported goods would be the value at the factory gate and not the port of export. He thus urged that the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Revisionary Authority does not warrant any interference and hence, the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Revisionary Authority, the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority as well as the circulars dated 28.02.2015 and 08.06.2018 and the Judgment cited at bar. 7. The short question posed before the Court for resolution is as to the point of sale/place of removal in case of goods being exported. Suffice it to say that the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 would govern the issue. The determinative factor as to when ownership of the goods is transferred from seller to buyer has to be considered in light of the provisions of the Act of 1930 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited (supra). As per the facts prevailing in the case at hand, the goods in question were exported from a port. Thus, unquestionably, ownership of the goods would be transferred to the buyer, moment the shipping bill is filed and the goods are handed over to the shipping line. At any point of time before this transaction, the manufacturer would have the option to retain/ call back or to deal with the goods in any other manner desired. Thus, unquestionably, ownership of the goods would be transferred to the buyer, moment the shipping bill is filed and the goods are handed over to the shipping line. At any point of time before this transaction, the manufacturer would have the option to retain/ call back or to deal with the goods in any other manner desired. Thus, the export order/ sale would fructify/be fulfilled only when the goods are handed over to the shipping line whereafter, the exporter would have no control thereupon. This issue has been duly clarified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs at para No.6 of the circular dated 28.02.2015 which reads as below:- “In the case of clearance of goods for export by manufacturer exporter, shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and goods are handed over to the shipping line. After Let Export Order is issued, it is the responsibility of the shipping line to ship the goods to the foreign buyer with the exporter having no control over the goods. In such a situation, transfer of property can be said to have taken place at the port where the shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and place of removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say, eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly.” 8. The contention of Shri Saraswat that this circular only deals with the CENVAT Credit and thus, the same has no application in cases of excise claim, has no merit whatsoever because in either of situations, the crucial factor for determining entitlement of the manufacturer exporter be it of CENVAT Credit or Excise Duty Rebate would be the point of sale. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by following observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited (supra): “13. The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale is effected namely whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time i.e. when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his premises. The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale is effected namely whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time i.e. when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his premises. This aspect is to be seen in the light of provisions of the Sale of Goods Act by applying the same to the facts of each case to determine as to when the ownership in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer. The charges which are to be added have put up to the stage of the transfer of that ownership inasmuch as once the ownership in goods stands transferred to the buyer, any expenditure incurred thereafter has to be on buyer's account and cannot be a component which would be included while ascertaining the valuation of the goods manufactured by the buyer. That is the plain meaning which has to be assigned to Section 4 read with Valuation Rules.” 9. It is precisely in light of the aforesaid judgment that the Board issued the circular dated 08.06.2018. The contention of Shri Saraswat that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in view of the circular dated 08.06.2018 is sans merit because in the said circular, the general principles for determination of place of removal have been highlighted with the exceptions being marked at para No.4 which deals with the case of export. The present one is also a case of export of goods. There cannot be two views on the aspect that in case of export, sale would be completed once the goods are handed over to the shipping line because the transaction would not be completed till that point of time. The Appellate Authority, while rejecting the appeals of the Department, took note of Judgments dated 04.03.2009 and 20.02.2009 passed by the Revisionary Authority of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India whereby, taking similar view in excise duty rebate matters, appeals of the Department were dismissed and it was held that place of removal is the Port of Export. 10. 10. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) clarifying that the circular dated 28.02.2015 is not restricted for availment of CENVAT Credit and would also be applicable on rebate of excise duty is the correct interpretation on facts and law. Thus, the order passed by the Revisionary Authority dated 19.12.2019 does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby reversed and set aside. The order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are affirmed. 11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. All pending applications are disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.