https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351812 CESTAT remanded to the original authority, finding the authority misdirected itself by treating place of delivery as distinct from point of sale despite contractual FOR-destination terms; reliance on Board circular and Sale of Goods Act was inappropriate. The Tribunal held input CENVAT credit on GTA services is allowable where sale is at destination and also allowed credit on auction services. Appeal allowed in favour of the appellant; the original authority was directed to re-examine applicability of the HC decision to the facts. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351812 CESTAT remanded to the original authority, finding the authority misdirected itself by treating place of delivery as distinct from point of sale despite contractual FOR-destination terms; reliance on Board circular and Sale of Goods Act was inappropriate. The Tribunal held input CENVAT credit on GTA services is allowable where sale is at destination and also allowed credit on auction services. Appeal allowed in favour of the appellant; the original authority was directed to re-examine applicability of the HC decision to the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351812