Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y of total cost basis at the premises of the appellant and in case of any defect entire sale was to be rejected. From the perusal of the above purchase order the condition, it is found that the entire supply is made on total cost basis, and could have been rejected by the buyer for any defects noticed subsequent to delivery. The above condition of purchase order is enough to hold that transit risk was with the appellant and supply was made on FOR basis. That being so, on the basis of Board Circular the credit could not have been denied. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Board has specifically directed against invocation of extended period of limitation, as the issue involved is interpretational in nature. The demand made by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the grounds that ownership, risk in transit remained with the seller till goods are accepted by the buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of the goods retaining right of disposal. I have carefully perused the copies of purchased orders submitted with the appeal. I find that at page 27 of the appeal papers, purchase order No. GAWSS:OR:011 & 012: APR:2017:PGP dated 17.04.2017 placed by Canara Bank, H.O. Bangalore has been attached. The purchase order nowhere mentions that ownership and risk in transit will remain with the appellant. The bank only placed order 'on Total Cost basis'. Similarly, at page 31, copy of purchase order No. ROB/IT/ATM-STY/2014/25683 dated 20.10.2014 from Oriental Bank .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n transportation charges used in outward transportation. 2.2 Since buyer's premises was not defined as place of removal, show cause notice dated 11.04.2017 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why: (i) The Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,84,706/- (Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Six only) should not be disallowed and demanded under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Interest on the above said amount of duty should not be demanded from them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Act ibid; (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt case is a very narrow Campos and the same is squarely covered by the Board Circular No.1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 wherein following has been stated- 5. CENVAT Credit on GTA Services etc: The other issue decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to place of removal is in case of CCE &ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd dated 1.2.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016 on the issue of CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency Service availed for transport of goods from the 'place of removal' to the buyer's premises. The Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises was not admissible for the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pply is made on total cost basis, and could have been rejected by the buyer for any defects noticed subsequent to delivery. The above condition of purchase order is enough to hold that transit risk was with the appellant and supply was made on FOR basis. That being so, on the basis of Board Circular the credit could not have been denied. 4.5 Further Board has specifically directed against invocation of extended period of limitation, as the issue involved is interpretational in nature. The demand made by invoking extended period of limitation goes contrary to the spirit of the circular. Thus I do not find any merits in the same and also the penalties imposed under Rule 15 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.6 Accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates