TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed - E/2525 OF 2008-SM (BR) - 850/2011-SM (BR) - Dated:- 9-11-2011 - RAKESH KUMAR, J. ORDER 1. The only issue of dispute in this case is as to whether the respondent during the period from Jan., 2007 to September, 2007 were eligible for cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods from the factory to the buyer's premises. According to the respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard all the conditions as given in Board's Circular No.97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 are satisfied i.e. during transit, the risk of loss of the goods or damaged to the goods was of the respondent and freight upto the customer's premises was integral part of the transaction value. Against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from the factory to the customer's premises would be covered by the definition of 'input service', that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE ST v. ABB Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 141/12 taxmann.com 57 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court has expressed the same view, that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parth Poly Wooven (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P.) Ltd. (supra). The ratio of these judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts is that prior to 1.4.2008, the service of Goods Transport Agency for transportation of the goods from the factory/Depot was covered by the definition of 'input service" if the sale took place at the customer's premises and the transactions were on FOR destination basis. In this case, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n mentioned as to how the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings that the respondent's transactions with their buyers were on FOR destination basis is incorrect. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement v. CCE [2007] 8 STT 122 (New Delhi - CESTAT) cited by the ld. DR does not help the department's case as there are judgments of the three High Courts where a contrary view has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
