9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods remain with the appellant till it reaches the buyer s premises and the conditions for F.O.R. sale as elucidated in the case of M/s. Roofit Industries [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT ] stands discharged by the appellant - In the present case, as the freight charges have been included in the assessable value on which excise duty has been discharged, there is no hesitation to conclude that the decision in M/s. Roofit Industries will apply to decide the place of removal. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Shri V. Ravindran, Adv. For the Respondent: Ms. T. Usha devi, DC (AR) ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Vs M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T.221 (S.C.). The said aspect has been clarified by the department in their recent Circular No.1065/4/2018-Cx., dated 08.06.2018. He adverted to page 42 of the appeal memo and submitted that the details of the freight charges paid by the appellant for the disputed period was furnished by the appellant, which is attached to the show-cause notice. In this table, it is very much clear that the price includes freight charges. The appellant has thus adduced sufficient evidence to establish that freight charges having been included in the assessable value, the sale has taken place only at the buyer s premises. Therefore, the place of removal is the buyer s premises. In such circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the authorities have rightly held that the place of removal is the factory gate. The appellants are not eligible for the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer s premises. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the authorities below have rejected the claim of credit of service tax paid on freight charges holding that the place of removal is the factory gate and not the buyer s premises. In the present case, as pointed out by learned counsel the table attached to the show-cause notice shows that the appellants have incurred the freight charges and has included the freight charges in assessable value on which excise duty has been discharged. This being so, the ownership of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
