TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notice that the activity rendered by M/s. Ocean Sparkle Ltd. is not outward transportation of goods from the factory. There is no discussion with regard to the purchase order or the agreement for delivery of the goods upto the Visakhapatnam Port in the impugned orders. Needless to say that when the ownership of the goods remained with the appellant till the buyer s premises, the sale takes place only at the buyer s end. Thus, it is the duty of the appellant to establish whether the ownership of the goods is with the appellant till the goods reaches the buyer s premises. If the appellant has agreed to supply the goods upto the buyer s premises at his own risk then, of course, the ownership belongs to the appellant till the goods reache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed an amount of ₹ 3,57,481/- along with interest and imposed penalty besides penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Against such order, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri V.S. Manoj reiterated the grounds stated in the Show Cause Notice as well as the appeal. He pointed out that the appellant has consistently contending that the nature of activity carried out at the MTF is not in the nature of outward transportation of goods. He adverted to the definition of GTA service and submitted that only when the goods are transported by way of road and a consignme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pipeline which is laid for carrying caustic soda upto the Karaikal Port is laid / owned by the appellant. M/s. Ocean Sparkle Ltd. is engaged to provide facilities for transportation of the goods at MTF. The sale would be complete only if the goods reach the Visakhapatnam Port which is the buyer s premises. Even if the allegation that it is outward transportation is considered, the credit would be eligible as the sale takes place only at the Vishakhapatnam Port which is the buyer s premises. It is also emphasized by him that the services are not in the nature of outward transportation of goods but in the nature of MTF management as input services which are availed in relation to the manufacturing activity and is eligible for credit. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the place of removal. In this case, the property of the goods has passed on to the buyer at the factory gate and therefore the sale is at the factory gate. She also referred to the latest Circular No. 116/23/2018-CX-3 dated 8.6.2018 issued by the Board and submitted that in the latest circular also the department has clarified that the place of removal is where the sale takes place. She therefore pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. There has been heated argument between both sides with regard to the facts of the case as to whether the activities rendered by M/s. Ocean Sparkle Ltd. is outward transportation of goods or whether it is merely management of MTF. For better appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Port. Undisputedly, this MTF is owned by the appellant. So also from the factory gate pipeline is laid upto the MTF for transportation of the final product namely caustic soda to the MTF from where it is transported to Visakhapatnam Port. The appellant has explained in the Show Cause Notice that the activity rendered by M/s. Ocean Sparkle Ltd. is not outward transportation of goods from the factory. The contentions put forward in the reply to the Show Cause Notice is reproduced for better appreciation:- a. It is alleged that M/s. Ocean Sparkle Ltd. provided service in relation to transportation of goods from the factory. b. This averment in the Show Cause Notice is contrary to the facts recorded in para N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khapatnam Port and not at the factory gate. As per the agreement / purchase order, it is contended that the appellant has to supply the goods upto the buyer s premises which is Visakhapatnam Port. However, there is no discussion with regard to the purchase order or the agreement for delivery of the goods upto the Visakhapatnam Port in the impugned orders. Needless to say that when the ownership of the goods remained with the appellant till the buyer s premises, the sale takes place only at the buyer s end. Thus, it is the duty of the appellant to establish whether the ownership of the goods is with the appellant till the goods reaches the buyer s premises. If the appellant has agreed to supply the goods upto the buyer s premises at his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
