Cenvat credit on outward GTA services allowed only on FOR destination supplies, with remand for factual verification.

A 20-day delay in filing the first appeal was condoned because the explanation that counsel was out of station was found satisfactory and unrebutted. On Cenvat credit for outward GTA services, credit was treated as admissible where finished goods were supplied on FOR destination terms and delivered at the buyer's doorstep, but only if the conditions in the relevant circular were met. Because entitlement depended on verification of the contractual terms and supporting documents, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, with liberty to produce documents and for personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit on outward GTA services was admissible, and whether the matter required remand for verification of the conditions governing such credit.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained on the ground that the appellant's advocate was out of station. The explanation was found satisfactory and no contrary circumstance was recorded to reject the request for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay of 20 days was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit on outward GTA services was admissible, and whether the matter required remand for verification of the conditions governing such credit.

Analysis: Credit on outward transportation was treated as admissible where the finished goods are supplied on FOR destination basis and delivered at the buyers' doorstep, subject to fulfilment of the conditions indicated in the circular relied upon. As the entitlement depended on documentary verification of the contractual terms and fulfilment of the stated conditions, the first appellate order could not be sustained on the existing record and the factual inquiry had to be undertaken by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration with directions to permit production of documents and grant personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of condonation of delay and remand, while the substantive entitlement to outward GTA credit was left for fresh adjudication on facts.

---