9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s premises. The appellant had rented a godown outside the factory for storing the inputs as well as the finished goods and availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 22,860/- of service tax paid on godown rent. The Cenvat credit availed in respect of outward freight upto the customers premises is Rs. 9,47,550/-. The appellant s stand has been that all their sales are on FOR destination basis satisfying the criteria prescribed in this regard in the Board s Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 and, hence, it is the customer s premises which is the place of removal and, hence, all the services availed upto the place of removal would be eligible for Cenvat credit. The department being of the view that the appellant s sales are not on FOR destination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, as such, there are no insurance charges, it cannot be inferred that the appellant have not borne the risk of damage to the goods or loss of goods during transit, that when customer s premises is to be treated as the place of removal, not only the outward freight upto the customers premises, but also the service of renting of godown would be covered by the definition of input service, that the godown had been used for storage of inputs as well as finished goods prior to their sale, that in any case the demand is time barred as the show cause notice has been issued after expiry of the normal limitation period and show cause notice does not even invoke the proviso to Section 11A (1) and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the order, it is seen that the department accepts that the appellant has paid central excise duty on the FOR destination price i.e. the factory gate price plus freight charges. According to the department the sales are not on FOR destination basis as in the invoices, there is no reference to the insurance charges. In my view just because the appellant did not insure the goods during transit, it cannot be inferred that the risk of loss of goods, or damage to the goods during transit was not of the appellant, when the invoices mentions that the sales are on FOR destination basis and duty had been paid on the price which includes the freight charges. In view of these facts, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
