TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h came into effect from 01.04.2008 would not make any difference. A perusal of invoices makes it clear that the goods were to be delivered and sale completed at the address of the buyer and no additional charge was levied by the assessee for such delivery. From these facts it is clear that the sale was completed only when the goods were received by the buyer. Since we are of the opinion that the sale had concluded only after the delivery of the goods was made at the address of the buyer, in the facts of the present case assessee would be entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on outward transportation of goods by the assessee even after 01.04.2008. The appellant-assessee would thus be entitled to such benefit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri.C.Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal has been heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage. The question of law for determination in this appeal, as has been framed in the memorandum of appeal would arise for consideration and it reads as under: Whether the Tribunal was correct in disallowing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the GTA service which is availed by the manufacturer on outward transport from the place of removal for the period after 31.03.2008 subsequent to the amendment of definition of input service under Rule 2(l)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules? 4. The definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out payment of duty; iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory, from where such goods are removed. After the said amendment came into force from 11.07.2014, a Circular was issued on 20.10.2014 the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (Central Board of Excise and Customs) which was to clarify the meaning of place of removal in the definition of input service. The relevant paragraph-6 of the circular dated 20.10.2014 is reproduced below: It is reiterated that the place of removal needs to be ascertained in term of provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with provisions of the Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded to record as under: I find that the assessee has not been able to establish the fact that: (i) the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; since there is no documentary evidence to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee. The sale was thus considered by the assessing officer to have been finalized at the factory gate and therefore the assessee was not found eligible for Service Tax credit availed by it on outward freight. No finding on merits with regard to such ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties was that the sale would be complete only after goods are delivered by the seller at the address of the buyer. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority have held that the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit merely because no documentary evidence has been adduced to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee. In our view, who pays for insurance or bears the risk of goods in transit would not be a material consideration. The same has also been made clear by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, in its Circular dated 20.10.2014. 10. Sri C.Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has received written instructions fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 12. Since we are of the opinion that the sale had concluded only after the delivery of the goods was made at the address of the buyer, in the facts of the present case the appellant-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on outward transportation of goods by the assessee even after 01.04.2008. The appellant-assessee would thus be entitled to such benefit for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2008 which has been denied to it by the authorities below. 13. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal stands allowed. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of disallowing CENVAT credit to the appellant for the period after 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
