TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (purchase)/PO) between the assessee and the client is the destination/client’s premises as the sale is on FOR destination basis”, proceed and arrived at a contrary decision. In fact, he attempted to make a distinction between ‘place of delivery’ and ‘place of sale’ by relying on the Board Circular dated 20/10/2014 and the provision of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - the Original Authority mis-directed himself in making such distinction after having recorded the factual position in para 18 of the impugned order dated 28/09/2015. In the face of such factual finding there could be no further interpretation to distinguish the place of delivery from point of sale - credit on GTA service allowed. CENVAT credit - input service - auction service - He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions. The Original Authority examined the issue afresh and held that the point of sale and place of delivery are different in the present case and referring to the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and Board Circular dated 20/10/2014, held that the appellants are not eligible for credit of service tax paid on GTA. The third impugned order is passed on the similar lines denying the credit. One more issue is regarding eligibility of the appellant for a credit of ₹ 5,511/- paid towards availing auction services for disposing of the scrap in the factory on payment of excise duty. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the impugned order clearly self-contradicted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircular dated 20/10/2014 and the provision of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. On careful consideration of his analysis, we find that the Original Authority mis-directed himself in making such distinction after having recorded the factual position in para 18 of the impugned order dated 28/09/2015. In the face of such factual finding there could be no further interpretation to distinguish the place of delivery from point of sale. We find no justification for further analysis on this as made by the Original Authority to arrive at a contrary decision. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are squarely on this issue. These are :- (i) M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Jaipur I vide final order No.54544 of 2017 dated 03/07/2017 ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
