9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on such assessable value excise duty was charged which is evident from the sale invoice which shows that the appellant have not collected the freight separately from the customer. The freight charge was borne by the appellant themselves. In this case the transaction should be considered as FOR sale and accordingly, the buyer s place shall become place of removal as all the expenses up to the delivery of the goods at the buyer s place was borne by the appellant. It can be seen in the case of M/S. SALASAR COPPER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, DAMAN [ 2019 (4) TMI 11 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] that on the basis of CA Certificates produced by the appellant regarding the nature of sale i.e. FOR Sale and also the inclusion of freight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable value on which excise duty was paid. He submits that on the identical facts, this tribunal has considered the issue in hand in the case of M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENTS LIMITED Vs. CCE, KUTCHH- 2019 (2) TMI 1487-CESTAT AHMEDABAD M/S. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. KUTCHH- 2019 (2) TMI 1488- CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the decisions of this tribunal have been upheld by Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. 03. Shri R P Parekh, learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the sale of the goods is at factory gate and not FOR. As per the definition of Input Service only those GTA Services are eligible for Cenvat Credit where the GTA Service is up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction value at which the goods are sold has to be taken for the purpose of assessment. In case of the value arrived at, as per Section 4(1)(a) no question can be raised. Moreover, in the facts of the present case the freight is deemed to have been included in the assessable value and on such assessable value excise duty was charged which is evident from the sale invoice which shows that the appellant have not collected the freight separately from the customer. The freight charge was borne by the appellant themselves. In this case the transaction should be considered as FOR sale and accordingly, the buyer s place shall become place of removal as all the expenses up to the delivery of the goods at the buyer s place was borne by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servations of the order-in-original that goods are sold on FOR basis has not been challenged and has not been upset by the impugned order. Ld. Counsel pointed that in the case of Sanghi Industries Limited vs. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) 2019 (2) TMI 1488 CESTAT Ahmedabad, in the similar circumstances, the benefit of Cenvat credit on GTA services was allowed. Similarly, in the case of Ultratech Cement Limited vs. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) 2019 (2) TMI 1487 CESTAT Ahmedabad where there was no dispute for the sale being FOR basis, credit has been allowed. Also in terms of Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018, there is no dispute on benefit of Cenvat credit if the sale is on FOR basis. 5. In view of the clear pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
