Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 325 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - Outward Transportation of Goods up to the buyer’s premises - sale on FOR basis - place of removal - Department was of the view that the place of removal can only be the factory gate - HELD THAT:- It is not necessary that there should be a separate contract for supply of goods. The parties can agree to the terms and conditions of the sale in the purchase orders itself. 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 FOR basis, the observations made by the authorities below that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence/contract establishing that they have borne the freight charges, insurance, etc., is without any factual basis and unacceptable. 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 it in the assessable value on which Excise Duty has been discharged by them. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] will apply and the place of removal is the buyer’s premises. In such circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] squarely applies. The disallowance of credit is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|