2016 (12) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs from the factory or to the depots, thereafter to the customers. The dispute in the present appeal is relating to eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit of service tax paid for GTA services for outward movement of cement up to the premises of the buyers. The Department entertained a view that "place of removal" is the factory gate of the appellant and, hence, the service tax paid on transportation from the factory gate to the customer's premises is not available as a credit to the appellant in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority vide his impugned order dated 27/11/12 disallowed total service tax credit of Rs. 3,14,66,838/- covering the period January 2005 to December 2011 as demanded in 4 different show cau .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve examined the impugned order. The Original Authority relied on dealer's agreement which stated that purchase of the goods by dealers will be on ex-works/ex-dump/ FOR basis. It is further stated in agreement that the company shall not be liable for any loss/damage to the goods after the same have been collected for forwarded from the company dump/works. Further, if the freight is on 'to pay' basis, value of damage/shortage will be deducted. On these terms and wordings appearing in the transaction documents, the Original Authority proceeded to examine the terms "sale' and "delivery" in terms of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Original Authority held that ownership of the goods by the appellant during transit till delivery to the buyer has not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the appellant to legally support their case relating to "place of removal". The Original Authority has not examined all the evidences submitted by the appellant. Instead, he observed that the appellants failed to furnished cogent evidence regarding "place of removal". Place of removal is a question of fact to be examined with reference to the definition, as mentioned in Section 4 and with the scope as clarified in Board Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P&H). We note that the dealer's agreement referred to by the Original Authority did mention all modes of transaction mainly ex-works/ex-dum .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X