9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flected from the purchase orders that the appellant has paid excise duty on the single price quoted in such orders. Invoices clearly show separate freight charges have been collected from the customers. The freight charges having been incurred by the appellants and also included in the assessable value, the place of removal can only be the buyer s premises as laid down by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] . The credit availed on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer s premises is eligible as decided by Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, the learned counsel Shri Karthik Sundaram appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to the various purchase orders issued by their customers to point out that the sale was on F.O.R. basis. The freight has been incurred by the appellants and included in the assessable value. The excise duty has been discharged by the appellants on the single price , which includes the freight charges etc. Since the appellants have not collected freight charges separately from the buyers, the sale takes place at the buyer s premises. To support this contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd., reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T.221 (S.C.). It is argued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as per the decision in the case of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., (supra), the place of removal can only be the factory gate. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly denied the credit of service tax paid for GTA Services upto the buyer s premises. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue is whether the appellants are eligible for the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer s premises. On perusal of various purchase orders, it is seen that the delivery terms is F.O.T. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the delivery is free on terms . The terms are specified in the purchase or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self. This becomes a concluded contract when the offer is accepted by the supplier/buyer. Therefore, when the purchase orders itself show that the condition for sale is F.O.R. basis, the observations made by the authorities below that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence/contract establish that they have borne the freight charges, insurance etc., is without any factual basis and unacceptable. 6.2. Further, in the present case, letters/certificates have been obtained by the appellant from the purchasers of the goods showing that the purchasers have not paid any freight charges separately. This strongly implies that the appellants have borne the freight charges and have included in the assessable value on which exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
