TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are of the view that had there been no arrangement for sale of crude oil to the buyer oil companies, there would have been no case for the appellant assessee to undertake the transportation of goods. It is only in order to honour the mandate of sale transaction to deliver the goods at delivery point, the transportation activity has been undertaken by the appellant assessee. The learned Commissioner has categorically accepted the fact that the appellant is under contractual obligation to supply and deliver the goods at the buyer's premises which has been referred as 'Custody Transfer Point' or the point of delivery. However, he confused the whole matter with the concept of place of removal to hold that the transportatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods through Pipelines / Conduit Services . Since all the appeals involve common issue, the same are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. OIL India Limited, a Govt. of India enterprise, is engaged in the business of exploration, production and sale of crude oil and natural gas. The point of dispute in the instant case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of Transportation of Goods through Pipelines / Conduit Services because the transportation charges are being separately recovered from the buyers in addition to the base price of crude oil. The said transportation charges is being recovered in the course of sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CCE 2016 (45) STR 65 (Tri-Del) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Singareni Collieries Co Ltd. (Final Order no. A/31199/2018 dated 10.09.2018) CCE, Bhubaneswar vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd (Final Order no. 76585/2017 dated 21.08.2017) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd 2018 - TIOL - 1691 - CESTATDELHI Northern Coalfields Ltd vs. CGST 2018 (8) TMI 1742 CESTAT Delhi He further contended that even if the transportation activity is considered to be 'service', the same would at best be considered to be self service i.e. the service to oneself to conclude the sale transaction which cannot be made liable to levy of service tax. He also contested the demand by invoking larger period of limitation and imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsportation activity has been undertaken by the appellant assessee . We also note that in the entire impugned adjudication order, the Ld Commissioner has not disputed the submissions made by the appellant assessee that risk and rewards associated with the transportation of crude remains with the appellant till the time the same is delivered to the buyers premises where the sale transaction is concluded. Neither there is any dispute with regard to the fact of payment of sales tax on the transportation charges. 7. On careful perusal of the entire order impugned, we find that the Ld. Commissioner in para 25 of the order dated 12.04.2019 has observed as below to frame his opinion on the taxability :- 25. I have further noticed that M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer Point' or the point of delivery. However, he confused the whole matter with the concept of place of removal to hold that the transportation charges is not liable to be included in the value of crude oil, which is not the subject matter of dispute herein for the reason that the demand in this case is not on the crude oil but on the transportation charges which though separately recovered is to solely honour the sale transaction by delivering the goods at the buyers premises. 8. We also find that the issue is also squarely covered by the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore 2016 (45) STR 65 (Tri-Del) wherein it has been observed that - We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to transport of goods through pipeline for charging service tax. The transport of chlorine through pipeline is done by the appellant in their own account and the delivery on sale is made to the buyer. The transportation charges are included as a consideration for sale and to discharge Central Excise duty. As such we find no justifiable legal basis to sustain any service tax liability on the appellants in the above transaction. Further, in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (Final Order no. A/31199/2018), it has been observed that - 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel and in the Order-in-Original that the sale of coal has not taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
