9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omaiya, Adv For the Respondent : Shri H M Dixit (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-002-APP-015-14-15 dated 15.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax aid on outward transportation of the goods for the period March, 08 to Dec, 09. It is the case of the appellant that the title of the goods passed on to the buyers on delivery to him and they have fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Board's Circular dated 23.8.2007 and the adjudicating authority has recorded the same and allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the assessee has produced purchase Orders and insurance policy dated 01.01.2008 and 01.01.2007. The instants cases are covering period from March 2008 to December, 2009. Therefore the documents submitted by the assessee are the relevant evidences in the case and acceptable as the conditions laid down in the Board's Circular No. 97/8/07-ST dated 23.08.2007 are fulfilled by the assessee. From the documents submitted by the assesee it can be seen that the final products are insured by the assessee themselves and there is term of delivering the goods to the doors of the customer. This clearly indicates that the ownership of the final product is with the assessee till the handing over of the goods at the doors of the customer. As agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s FOR destination but has proceeded to record as under: I find that the assessee has not been able to establish the fact that: (i) the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; since there is no documentary evidence to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee. The sale was thus considered by the assessing officer to have been finalized at the factory gate and therefore the assessee was not found eligible for Service Tax credit availed by it on outward freight. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The record clearly shows that the intention of the parties was that the sale would be complete only after goods are delivered by the seller at the address of the buyer. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority have held that the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit merely because no documentary evidence has been adduced to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee. In our view, who pays for insurance or bears the risk of goods in transit would not be a material consideration. The same has also been made clear by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, in its Circular dated 20.10.2014. 10. Sri C.Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondents has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with regard to place of completion of sale of the goods. 12. Since we are of the opinion that the sale had concluded only after the delivery of the goods was made at the address of the buyer, in the facts of the present case the appellant-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on outward transportation of goods by the assessee even after 01.04.2008. The appellant-assessee would thus be entitled to such benefit for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2008 which has been denied to it by the authorities below. 13. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal stands allowed. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
