9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice (GTS) or otherwise. 2. The brief fact of the case is that based on certain verification by the Department, wherein, it was noticed that price declared on invoice was inclusive of loading and transportation charges as also the clarification from the appellant that their sale is on FOR basis, the Department examined the taxability of Cenvat Credit taken in respect of Goods Transport Service. Department relied on the fact that the factory gate is required to be treated as the place of removal and therefore service tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation of cement from the factory or from the depot upto the premises of buyers were not eligible for taking Cenvat Credit. 3. On adjudication, out of total demand of Rs. 3,12,71,08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses. Learned Advocate has mainly contended that sale of goods from Depot was also on FOR basis and that the transaction got completed at buyer's premises only and therefore on the similar lines on which the Learned Adjudicating Authority had dropped the demand in respect of clearances ex-factory, this amount is also liable to be set aside. He has relied on certain documents provided which show that sale of cement from Depot was for "door delivery" or for "at site basis" and therefore even in the case of clearance of goods from Depot to place of removal would be at the customer's premises. He is relying on the judgment of CC and CE, Aurangabad Vs Roofit Industries Ltd., [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)]. He iss also relying on the CBEC Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby warranting invocation of extended period. He is also submitting that the Commissioner has noted their submission on the grounds of limitation but had not recorded any findings with respect to the written submission that the ingredients under Section 11(4) was not available. Learned Advocate also submits that the Adjudicating Authority's impugned order cannot have right to concur with the findings of the previous Adjudicating Authority and has to apply her own mind. In fact, he submits that since the Tribunal had already set aside the earlier adjudication order dated 30.01.2019, to the extent of demand of Cenvat Credit confirmed and therefore it was not in existence for the Commissioner to concur with the findings in the nonexistant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame, in the absence of any substantive document, they will not be eligible for taking credit to the extent of Rs. 3,44,228/- as held by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, their reliance on various case laws are not relevant in the sense that here there is no confusion as regards interpretation of law in as much as the appellant themselves have clearly understood the law and followed the same as admitted in the grounds of appeal. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 8. I find that the issue lies within a narrow compass. The issue that needs to be decided is whether in the facts of the case, Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 3,44,228/-, which has been confirmed and demanded from the appellant, is correct or not. It is an admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the Adjudicating Authority, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has gone through various case laws as well as evidence adduced by the appellant at para 22 and observed that the documents furnished by the assessee related to the clearance of final products directly through the factory to the buyers premises and that they have not produced any documents / information evidencing (i) the sale from Depot/Premises of Consignment Agent to the customer's premises was on FOR destination basis, (ii) transfer of property at buyer's premises and (iii) inclusion of the freight charges in the assessable value and payment of Excise duty on the said freight charges. Therefore, essentially, the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to invoke the ingredients required for invoking the extended period. Moreover, the entire issue is as regards the determination of point of sale or place of removal etc., which were having different interpretations during the material time in terms of various judgments including the judgment in the case of Larson & Toubro, Ispat Industries Ltd., and Roofit Industries Ltd., etc. Even the Board also had some doubt in the light of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue and therefore they issued certain guidelines/clarification in terms of Circulars cited by the Learned Advocate, which also supports that extended period should not be invoked. Learned AR's submission that this will be applicable only in respect of new show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
