9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained with the seller (appellant herein) till the same is delivered at the buyer’s end. Since the certificates were issued upon proper verification of the records/ documents, the same have the evidentiary value. Further the documents available in the file transpire that the appellant borne the risk or loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and also the freight charges mentioned in the invoices issued by the appellant were an integral part of the price of goods. Since, the conditions enumerated in the Circular dated 23.08.2007 have been duly complied with by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the freight charges incurred for transportation of goods up to the buyers premises should be considered as inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant availed cenvat credit of Service tax paid on Insurance Services, Courier Services and GTA Services (All related to outward transportation of goods to the buyers premises). The credit so taken were denied and penalty imposed in the adjudication orders. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders has held that the appellant had not complied with the requirement of Circular No. 97/08/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 issued by the CBEC, to substantiate the fact that place of removal of the excisable goods is not the factory gate, but the premises of the buyer, where ownership/ title to goods have been transferred. Feeling aggrieved with the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support her stand+ that the clarification/ guidelines issued therein are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case for the purpose of consideration of the place of removal as the factory gate of the buyer, for availing the cenvat benefit by the appellant. 4. Per contra, Sh. R K Mishra the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) having been held that the requirement of the Circular dated 23.08.2007 had not been complied with by the appellant, the cenvat benefit of service tax paid on the freight charges for transportation of goods will not be available to the appellant. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs UOI reported in 2009 (14) ST (P H). In the said circular, it has been clarified that credit of service tax paid on transportation upto the place of removal would be admissible upon fulfillment of the conditions, namely, (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his doorstep; (ii) the seller bore the risk or loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and; (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. 8. I find from the purchase orders placed in the file that the buyer of the goods have specifically indicated therein that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
