9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 507 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Outward Transit Insurance in respect of Excisable Goods sold - credit denied on the ground that no document such as sale contract was submitted therefore it cannot be said that the sale is on FOR basis - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that original authority has gone through the document such as sale invoices LR copies CA Certificate and allowed the credit considering the sale is on FOR basis. On careful perusal of the invoices it is found that invoices clearly mentioned a condition that the sale is on FOR basis and risk upto the destination is covered. It is also not the case of the department that outward transit insurance was paid by the consignee. In this case it is clear that the sale is on FOR basis and sale invoices itself is a kind of contract and no further contract is required to ascertain that whether the sale is on FOR basis or not. Therefore there is no dispute that sale is on FOR basis and hence credit is admissible. The appellant is entitle for the Cenvat Credit on the services of Outward Transit Insurance - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Entitlement of Cenvat Credit on Outward Transit Insurance for Excisable Goods sold on FOR basis. Analysis: 1. The issue revolved around the entitlement of the appellant for Cenvat Credit on Outward Transit Insurance for Excisable Goods sold by them. The original authority allowed the credit based on the documents such as invoices, LR copies, and CA certificates, confirming the sale on FOR basis. However, the revenue contested this decision, claiming that no sale contract was submitted to prove the nature of the sale. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the revenue's appeal based on the absence of a sale contract, leading to the present appeal by the appellant. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the nature of the sale being on FOR basis was evident from the invoices, CA certificates, and LR copies submitted. They cited a previous Tribunal judgment in their favor and relied on cases involving ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD and SANGHI INDUSTRIED LTD, which were upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, to support their claim. 3. The revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order and referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, emphasizing that credit is not admissible when it is not a case of "upto removal." Additionally, they cited a judgment from the Hyderabad bench of the tribunal in the case of NCL INDUSTRIES to support their argument. 4. The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) carefully examined the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. It was observed that the original authority had allowed the credit after verifying the sale invoices, LR copies, and CA Certificate, which clearly indicated the sale was on FOR basis. The invoices explicitly stated the sale condition and the coverage of risk up to the destination, with no indication that the outward transit insurance was paid by the consignee. The Member concluded that the sale being on FOR basis was evident from the invoices themselves, making any additional contract unnecessary to establish the nature of the sale. The Member also referenced previous judgments involving ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD and SANGHI INDUSTRIED LTD, where the credit was allowed for similar transactions. 4.1 The Member further distinguished the judgment cited by the revenue's representative from the Hyderabad bench, noting that it did not consider the circular issued by the board post the Supreme Court judgment in ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. The Member highlighted that the tribunal is bound by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which upheld the decisions in the cases of ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD and SANGHI INDUSTRIED LTD, thereby emphasizing the validity of the appellant's claim. 5. Ultimately, based on the analysis and legal precedents, the Member concluded that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat Credit on the services of Outward Transit Insurance, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
