9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and which clearly has not at all been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority or even by the First Appellate Authority, the matter is required to be remitted to the file of the First Appellate Authority for the very limited purpose of considering the explanations of the appellant filed in response to the Show Cause Notice and in the light of subsequent Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 41034 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41019/2019 - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. N. Ramaswamy, Consultant for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per contra, Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, contended that there is no evidence placed on record by the appellant as to the documentary evidences furnished before the lower authorities to prove its case that the sale is on FOR destination basis. But however, in the interests of justice, if the same were indeed furnished and the authorities below have not considered the same while passing respective orders, the assessee may be given one more opportunity by remanding the matter with a direction to consider the same. 2.2.1 Without prejudice to the above, Ld. AR submitted that the Hon ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in the case of Commr. of C.G.S.T., Udaipur Vs. M/s. Mangalam Cem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight charges must be included as the sale in the present facts took place at the buyer s premises is incorrect. Further, for the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2003 there will be no extended place of removal, the factory premises or the warehouse (in the circumstances mentioned in the Section), alone being places of removal. Under no circumstances can the buyer s premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case. 3.1 Rebutting the contentions of the Ld. AR, Ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that the Board Circular dated 08.06.2018 ( supra ) has amply made it clear that the place of removal has to be ascertained after going through the facts of each case. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e risk of loss or damage during the transit and of course, including the freight charges. 6. I note that in a number of decisions involving almost identical facts, this Bench has remitted the issue to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to consider and apply the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra), M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) and the C.B.I.C. Circular ( supra ). 7. I also note that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR for the Revenue is decided subsequent to the date of the C.B.I.C. Circular ( supra ), but however, the Hon ble High Court has not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Authority to the extent of disallowance of Cenvat credit on the aforementioned three aspects and interest thereon is confirmed. However, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration of the question of penalty to decide the same after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on merits on the question of penalty. From the above, it is quite clear that the delivery on FOR destination basis was not even part of the substantial question framed and answered by the Hon ble High Court. 8. It is undisputed that the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) covers even the post-amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
