9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s premises in the light of the Board s Circular dated 08.06.2018 - HELD THAT:- The appellant to first establish whether there was an agreement or the purchase order wherein it is made clear as to the terms; and the manufacturer was required to deliver the manufactured goods at the buyer s premises; and then comes the transfer of ownership, which is to be ascertained - without examining these aspects, the observations of the adjudicating authority, cannot be sustained since the buyer s premises where the goods are alleged to have been delivered would at the most become the place of acceptance of supplies. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 40136-40140/2019 - Final Order Nos. 40791-40795/2019 - Dated:- 13-5-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customer/buyer, which aspect was not the issue in the decided case of Commissioner of Central Excise S.T. Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and accordingly, pleaded that the reversal of the allowed CENVAT Credit in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal was required to be set aside. 4.1 Per contra, Ld. AR appearing for the respondent submitted that in a batch of cases, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahle Engine Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. S.T., Chennai-III Ors. reported in 2019 (4) T.M.I. 635 CESTAT Chennai has felt it proper to remand this issue to the file of the adjudicating authority to ascertain the nature of agreement/contract, if any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loading, unloading etc., were includible in the assessable value for the purpose of valuation of the goods. On the other hand, the issue that was addressed in Ultra Tech Cements (supra) concerned the eligibility for availing Cenvat credit incurred on transport services from the place of removal to the buyer s premises. This being so, the Roofit judgment basically concerns itself with includibility of certain costs incurred the delivery of the goods at the buyer s point, whereas, on the other hand Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., (supra) is confined to eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of transportation undertaken by the seller/manufacturer till the buyer s premises. and has further observed that in the case of M/s. Ultra Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt aspects : . . . (iii) The said normal price is to be seen at the time of delivery and place of removal. (iv) Place of removal is specifically defined and for our purposes, it is to be a place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory and from where such goods are removed. Thus, place of removal, in a given case, become determinative factor for the purpose of valuation. . . . . 12. The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would clearly imply that till the goods reach the destination, ownership in the goods remain with the supplier namely the assessee. As per the terms of payment clause contained in the procurement order, 100% payment for the supplies was to be made by the purchaser after the receipt and verification of material. Thus, there was no money given earlier by the buyer to the assessee and the consideration was to pass on only after the receipt of the goods which was at the premises of the buyer. From the aforesaid, it would be manifest that the sale of goods did not take place at the factory gate of the assessee but at the place of the buyer on the delivery of the goods in question. (Emphasized by underlining, for clarity) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is to be ascertained in the light of the observations at paragraph 13 of M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra). Thus, without examining these aspects, the observations of the adjudicating authority at paragraphs 20 and 21, as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, cannot be sustained since the buyer s premises where the goods are alleged to have been delivered would at the most become the place of acceptance of supplies. 9. In the light of the discussions as above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court and the order of this Bench (supra). Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
