2009 (4) TMI 157 - AT - Service Tax

Input Servcies Cenvat Credit - . The dispute relates to the period from January 2005 to November 2005. During the said period, they incurred freight for outward transportation involved in supply of the excisable goods to their customers held that - the original authority has passed the order on 26-10-2007 after issue of the Board Circular dated 23-8-2007. However, the ld. advocate for the appellant submits that the personal hearing was held earlier to the date of issue of the circular and that they could not draw the attention of the adjudicating authority to the said circular matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over excise duty on freight for outward transportation of excisable goods. Interpretation of ownership and risk transfer in sales transactions. Application of Board's Circular and High Court decision on input service classification.

Analysis:

1. Ownership and Risk Transfer in Sales Transactions:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, faced a dispute regarding the freight incurred for outward transportation of goods to customers from January 2005 to November 2005. The appellant raised two types of invoices: one without separately indicating freight for FOR destination sales and the other with separate freight amounts. The appellant argued that in both cases, they retained ownership of the goods until delivery to the customers, assuming the risk of damage or loss during transit. Citing Board's Circular and a High Court decision, the appellant contended that the transportation costs till delivery should be considered as input service.

2. Application of Board's Circular and High Court Decision:
The original authority issued an order after the Board Circular dated 23-8-2007, but the appellant claimed that the personal hearing occurred before the circular's release, preventing them from referencing it. The Tribunal recognized the need for a detailed examination of relevant facts by the original authority to determine the applicability of the Board's circular and the High Court decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority, remanding the matter for a fresh consideration of all issues, including the limitation, with a fair hearing for both parties.

3. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal through remand, indicating that the stay petition was also resolved. The decision highlighted the importance of a comprehensive review of facts and legal interpretations by the original authority to ensure a just and informed determination of the dispute over excise duty on freight for outward transportation of excisable goods.