9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant manufacturer. The “place of removal” has to be held at the customer’s premises This position has been clarified by CBEC in the Circular No. ST/137/85/2007-CX-4 dated 23/8/2007. Even after the amendment in the definition of input services with effect from 1/4/2008 replacing the words “from the place of removal” by “up to the place of removal” the place of removal gets extended up to the buyer’s premises in the case of FOR-destination sales and as such, the said amendment does not make any difference, where the sales are on FOR-destination basis. In the case of destination sale, the ownership and property is transferred when the manufacturer delivered the goods to the buyer at his premises. Accordingly, I hold that Cenvat Credit of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold on FOR basis on the door step of the buyer and as such, door step of the buyer is the "place of removal" as defined under Section 4 (2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, as place of removal includes and any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. That reliance was also placed on CBEC circular number 97/8/2007 dated 23/8/07 wherein it has been classified that the "place of removal" is the premises of the buyer where - (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the Seller or the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step, (ii) the Seller borne the risk of loss or damage to the goods during tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat further no separate payments have been received from the purchasers on account of transport charges and further, freight charges was an integral part of the price of the goods. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The Id. Counsel for the appellant states that he issue is no longer res integra and it is the settled by precedent decisions of the Division Bench of this Tribunal and the Honourable High Court. Reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rohtak : 2015 (37) STR 364 (Tri.-Del), relying on the ruling of Honourable Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Lafarge India Ltd. Vs. CC, Raipur : 2014 (307) ELT 7 (Chhattisgar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. 5. Having considered the rival contentions. I find that the ruling in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, is of no help as in that case the issue was as to the includibility of cost of transportation charges from factory gate to the depot which was the place of removal in the transaction value of the goods, under the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 under the fact that the assessee had cleared the goods both directly from the factory gate as well as from the depot. I further hold that in the facts of this case, "the place of delivery of goods" is the customer's premises and the freight is bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
