At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK JINDAL
For Petitioner: K. Poddar, A.R. And For Respondents: Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate
1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is clearing the goods on FOR destination basis as the ownership of the goods remains with the appellant and val
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ue of outward transportation has been included in the assessable value of goods. In that circumstance they have availed Cenvat credit on outward transportation service. The show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat credit on outward transportation service on the ground that as the place of removal is factory gate. Therefore, they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit for the services received beyond their factory gate. The matter was adjudicated, Cenvat credit on outward transportation service was denied but on appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Cenvat credit on outward transportation services relying on the CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007 that the respondent has complied with the said circular. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me.
3. The ld. AR submits that as with effect from 1.4.2008 place of removal is a factory gate or depot. Admittedly, outward transportation charges are beyond the place of removal, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on outward transportation service.
4. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
5. Heard both the sides considered the submissions.
6. On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the fact which is not disputed that goods have been supplied by the respondent on FOR destination and the charges paid on outward transportation service has been included in the assessable value of the goods. In that circumstances, it is to be seen that during the transit who is the owner of the goods. Admittedly, when goods are sold on FOR destination, the ownership remains with the respondent. In such cases as per Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007, the place of removal is place is the destination of goods. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana also affirmed the said view in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order, the same is upheld.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed