9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) dated 23.11.2015 and 21.06.2017 (impugned orders). The appellants are manufacturers of PVC/HDPE/XLPE insulated & PVC sheathed aluminium copper cables and AAA conductors and are clearing their goods to various Electricity Boards in terms of various contracts/Purchase Orders (PO). The Department felt that since the appellants was selling their products on FOR destination basis/ for delivery at the stores of customers by road and responsibility/ liability of the appellant included packing, forwarding and payment of unloading charges/ transit insurance, etc., the ownership of the goods rests with the appellant during the transit and till the goods are delivered at the customers' premises and therefore, sale will be completed only upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase orders placed by Eastern Power Distribution Company and explained that the sale was actually completed at the destination and in terms of various terms and conditions of the purchase order, it cannot be considered as ex-works sale. He has highlighted following clauses of purchase order: (1) Clause 2 - The prices noted above are variable FADS and are inclusive of Excise duty &Cess, Freight & Insurance and VAT. (2) Clause 6 - 100% payment will be arranged on or after 30 days from the date of Form-13 i.e., receipt of material / equipment in good condition at the destination / stores duly certified by the consignee or after Approval of Test Certificates or after submission of bill in complete shape or acceptance of Performance Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract wherein the clearance of goods is against FOR basis and Transportation and Insurance are prepaid. 4. He has also relied on various case laws including Larger Bench decision in the case of The Ramco Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Puducherry [Interim Order No.40020/2023 dt.21.12.2023], wherein, the Larger Bench has examined the judgments passed in the cases of Ispat Industries Ltd (supra), CCE, Mumbai-III Vs Emco Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC)] and CCE Vs Roofit Industries Ltd [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)]. They have also relied on other judgments including the case of Principal Commissioner CGST & CE Vs Unique Structures & Towers Ltd [Final Order No.51254/2019 dt.24.09.2019 (Tri-Del)], Schneider Electric India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT, Medchal-GST [Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Ramco Cements Ltd (supra). The issue which needs to be decided is as to what would be the place of sale in the given factual matrix. This would obviously be based on various terms and conditions and only then one can arrive at definite conclusion whether sale has taken place ex-factory or actually it is getting concluded at the destination of the buyer. As far as various judgments are concerned, all these judgments have been considered by different Tribunals to arrive at a particular conclusion in a given factual matrix about the place of sale. In the case of Schneider Electric India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT, Medchal-GST (supra), this Bench has examined this issue in a given factual matrix. The relevant para is reproduced below: "10. On the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, inter alia, examined the issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit of Goods Transport Agency services on outward transportation. After going through catena of judgments including Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Roofit Industries (supra) and Emco Ltd (supra) as well as Ispat Industries (supra), it was held that wherever the clearance of goods is against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roofit Industries (supra) and Emco Ltd (supra). In the case of M/s HD Wires Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE, Indore [Final Order No.57985/2024 dt.08.08.2024], the Coordinate Bench at Delhi, inter alia, examined the applicability of judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of insurance risk as borne by the transporter is part of the transportation charges and therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court, after observing that delivery of goods in this case was post sale, the value paid for transportation including the cost of insurance cannot be part of the transaction value. Thus, placing reliance on these judgments, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in the given factual matrix, the judgments in the case of Roofit Industries (supra) and Emco Ltd (supra) are relevant and not that of Ispat Industries (supra) as clearly the price is not ex-works. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) insofar as merit is concerned." 7. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
