2015 (2) TMI 960 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Disallowance of cenvat credit availed as input credit on outward transportation upto the buyer s premises - Held that - On a perusal of copies of purchase orders, invoices submitted by the appellant along with appeal papers and the contract it is stated that door delivery to the buyers premises. The appellants have discharged duty on the total value of the goods inclusive of freight and insurance. Considering the decisions of Hon ble High Court and the Tribunal (2013 (12) TMI 1025 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) and 2007 (7) TMI 19 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , I find that prima facie the appellants have made out a case for waiver of predeposit and stay. Accordingly, predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order is waived and its recovery is stayed till disposal of the appeals. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of cenvat credit on outward transportation
- Demand of interest and imposition of penalty
- Compliance with circular No. 97/8/2007-ST
- Eligibility for cenvat credit on outward transportation service
- Reliance on case laws
- Discrepancy in dates of purchase orders and invoices
- Tribunal decisions relied upon
- Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI dealt with multiple issues arising from a common impugned order. The adjudicating authority disallowed cenvat credit on outward transportation to the buyer's premises, demanded interest, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued compliance with circular No. 97/8/2007-ST, stating that deliveries were on FOR Destination basis, and they were eligible for cenvat credit on outward transportation service, citing relevant case laws for support.

The Respondent, however, pointed out a discrepancy in the dates of purchase orders and invoices, highlighting that the period involved did not align with the documents provided. The Respondent relied on Tribunal decisions to support their stance. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the purchase orders, invoices, and the contract, noting the "door delivery" clause to the buyer's premises. Considering previous decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay, ultimately allowing the stay applications and waiving the predeposit of dues until the appeals were disposed of.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment provided relief to the appellants by waiving the predeposit and staying the recovery of dues pending the disposal of the appeals, based on the interpretation of the contract terms and previous legal precedents.