Tribunal Remands Case for Further Examination on FOR Basis Delivery and Credit Admissibility for GTA Services.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination. The Tribunal agreed that credit on GTA service for delivery on FOR basis is admissible in principle if goods are delivered to the buyer's location. However, they emphasized the need for factual scrutiny to confirm if the goods were indeed transferred on FOR basis. The appellant was instructed to provide contracts and legal opinions, excluding the Chartered Accountant's opinion on legal aspects, to support their claim.

---

---

Issues involved:
The limited issue in this case is availing credit on GTA service for delivery on FOR basis. The main contention is whether the terms of the contract support the credit availability of GTA service.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad heard arguments from both sides regarding the availing of credit on GTA service for delivery on FOR basis. The appellant argued that GTA service was part of the supply made by them on FOR basis, citing Board Circular No. 97/8/2007 and various case laws to support their position. On the other hand, the department supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove that the goods were delivered on FOR basis.

The Court agreed in principle that credit is admissible if the terms are FOR basis and goods are delivered to the buyer at the place of the buyer, not the place of manufacture. They referenced specific case laws to support this stance. However, they found that the issue was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on evidence, including a Chartered Accountant certificate. The certificate stated conditions under which credit was availed on freight outward, but the Court noted that the legal aspects mentioned in the certificate were beyond the expertise of a Chartered Accountant and required proper legal opinion and evidence.

As a result, the Court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the instruction that credit on FOR basis freight is admissible in principle, but factual scrutiny is needed to determine if goods were actually transferred on FOR basis. The appellant was given the opportunity to produce contracts and proper legal opinion or other evidence to support their claim, excluding the Chartered Accountant's opinion on legal aspects.

Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.

---