TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of C&F agency charges collected by the appellant from the buyer service stands received by the buyer and not remained with the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/89531/13 - A/85354/2018 - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) Shri J. C. Patel, Advocate with Ms. Shamita J. Patel, Advocate for Appellant Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent ( A. R. ) for Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement. They sell the cement as ex-factory sale. After sale of the goods, finished goods are cleared from the railway by the C F agent and the goods are handed over to the Transport or onward despatch to the buyer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being service recipient of the C F agency service. The buyer of the goods has no party in the contract. He submits that they did not have facility to clear the goods from the railway station at destination. Accordingly, buyer made it a condition of the contract of sale purchase order that the appellant should arrange for clearing and forwarding goods from the railway station to the buyer s premises. He submits that C F agent service is in relation to the business activity of the goods, therefore it is an input service. He placed reliance on the following judgments. (a) Leroy Somer India P Ltd Vs CCE[2015(39)STR 466] (b) Tricity Autos Vs. CCE[2015(39)STR 322] He submits that merely because services arranged for and received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant have adopted the modus operandi to rout the invoice through appellant in respect of C F agent service which in fact provided to the buyer of the goods only to avail Cenvat credit. Since service of C F provided on behalf of the buyer it is not input service for the appellant therefore lower authority has rightly denied the credit. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd[2014(34)S.T.R. 26(Cal)] (b) Lagarge India Ltd Vs. Commissioner[2014(307) ELT 7(Chh)] (c) India Japan Lighting Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner[2007(8) S.T.R. 124 (Tri. Chennai)] (d) Telco Construction Equipemnt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
