TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation basis is not acceptable, as the conditions as prescribed in the Board’s Circular dated 23.08.2007 have not been satisfied. There is nothing in the appellant’s contracts with their customer from which it can be inferred that during the transit, the risk of the damage to the goods or loss of the goods was of the appellant and that the outward freight was integral part of the assessable on which excise duty had been paid - during the period from 1.4.2008, Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had been amended and as such, there was no ambiguity for this period, that cenvat credit in respect of the outward freight from the factory upto to the customer’s premises would be available only if the customer’s premises is the place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Rs.1,46,401/- . By two separate orders-in-original, both the cenvat credit demands were confirmed along with interest and penalties of Rs.10,000/- each were imposed. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against these orders, the same were dismissed by two separate orders, against which these appeals have been filed along with stay applications. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay application. 3. M/s. Rashi, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that sofar as Appeal No.E/55508/2013 is concerned, the disputed amount of cenvat credit of Rs.1,46,401/- has been paid by the appellant under protest. With regard to second appeal No.E/55505/2013 where the disputed amount is Rs.6,35,120/- in respect of the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the appellant s sales to Public Health Engg. Department of Rajasthan were not on FOR destination basis, that there is nothing in the Appellant s contracts with the Public Health Engg. Department of Rajasthan, from which it can be inferred that the sales were on FOR destination basis on the basis of criteria in this regard as prescribed in the Board s Circular No.97/8/07 dated 23.08.2007, that just because the goods have been delivered by the appellant at the customer s premises, the sales would not become FOR destination sales, that in this regard, the Commissioner have given a clear finding that the appellant have suppressed the relevant facts with regard to availment of cenvat credit on outward freight and longer limitation period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, I am of the prima facie view that the appellant s plea that their sales were on FOR destination basis is not acceptable, as the conditions as prescribed in the Board s Circular dated 23.08.2007 have not been satisfied and there is nothing in the appellant s contracts with their customer from which it can be inferred that during the transit, the risk of the damage to the goods or loss of the goods was of the appellant and that the outward freight was integral part of the assessable on which excise duty had been paid. Moreover during the period from 1.4.2008, Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had been amended and as such, there was no ambiguity for this period, that cenvat credit in respect of the outward freight from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
