2019 (9) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Govindarajan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts and are registered with the Central Excise department. They are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. Show-cause notice was issued alleging availment of ineligible credit on outward transportatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 065/4/2018-Cx., dated 08.06.2018, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd., reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.), would be applicable. Thus the place of removal would be the buyer's premises as the appellant has included the freight charges in the assessable value for discharging the excise duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... harges for outward transportation of goods. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the sale is on F.O.R. basis. The documents show that the sale is on F.O.B. destination/free house delivery. The appellant was under an obligation to deliver the goods at the buyer's premises. They have also included the freight charges in the assessable value while discharging the excise duty. This issue, as to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X