TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x paid on freight will be available if freight has been paid upto the customer’s premises. Similar issue decided in the case of M/s Madras Cements Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) [2015 (7) TMI 1001 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that 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 the period 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2008. Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the appellant in numerous decisions of the High Court as well as the Tribunal. Since the supply of goods in the present case has been made on FOR basis and the appellant was required to cover the risk of loss or damage of the goods upto the premises of the customer, the Cenvat Credit will be leviable. She also relied upon the following decisions: i) Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE Rohtak - 2015 (37) STR 364 (Tri-Del.) ii) CCE Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) iii) CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (25) STR 4 (Guj.) iv) Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P H). v) CCE Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. - 2011 (24) STR 542 (Kar.) vi) Ultratech Cement Ltd. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble High Court and Tribunal and in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. (Supra) the Hon ble High court decided the issue as follows: From the facts of the present case, it is clear from the invoices that title of the goods had passed on from seller to buyer only at the place of destination, which is the address of the buyer. As such, the buyer had no right over the goods till delivered to it. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect and has only relied on the amendment made to the definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2008 and rejected the claim of the appellant-assessee after the date. No further reason has been given by the Tribunal nor any finding has been recorded with regard to place of completion of sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
