TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Rohtak vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 1163 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that in view of Circular No. 97/6/2007-ST, dated 23-8-2007, credit is admissible if ownership of goods remain with seller till delivery of goods at customer’s doorstep – since sales is based on basis of “FOR destination”, transit insurance and freight charges are borne by appellant, so credit is admissible on outward freight. CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21040/2014-SM - Final Order No. 21212 / 2016 - Dated:- 9-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Anirudh. C, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsportation and insurance charges are included in the MRP and they do not charge any extra amount towards freight and insurance to the customers and are providing door-step delivery. The Department issued show-cause notice dated 25.4.2012 proposing to recover CENVAT credit of service tax paid amounting to ₹ 11,23,451/- on outward transportation of spare parts during the period April 2011 to January 2012 on the ground that the services of outward transportation does not qualify as an input service in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of CCR, 2004 as the same is not used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Additional Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 18.2.2013 confirmed the demand towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it has been held in plethora of cases that once the conditions in the aforesaid Circular are satisfied, credit on outward transportation is to be allowed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i) Hyndai Motor India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2016-TIOL-767-CESTAT-MAD] (ii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Rohtak vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 392 (P H] (iii) Commissioner vs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. J304 (Mad.)] (iv) Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-II vs. Bajaj Hindustan [2015 (40) S.T.R. 281 (Tri.-Del.)] (v) Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2015 (37) S.T.R. 364 (Tri.-Del.)] 4.2. He also submitted that the lower authorities have allowed credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the appellants have availed credit on GTA services utilized for transportation of finished goods beyond their factory gate which is their place of clearance during the impugned period. He further submitted that the phrase clearance of final products from the place of removal was substituted by clearance of final products upto the place of removal in the main portion of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2008. He also submitted that the services of outward transportation does not qualify as input service in terms of Rule 2(l) (iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the same is not used directly or indirectly, in or in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
