<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (10) TMI 1213 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310685</link>
    <description>CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding recovery of CENVAT credit on outward freight charges for goods removed on FOR destination basis. The tribunal held that following SC decision in Roofit Industries, the place of removal is where ownership transfers from seller to buyer. For FOR destination sales, ownership transfers at delivery point, making freight charges includible in assessable value. Since appellant paid duty including freight charges up to destination delivery point, they were eligible for CENVAT credit on GTA services. The tribunal noted the referring bench failed to consider Board&#039;s 2018 clarification, making the earlier decision non-binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 05:50:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1213 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310685</link>
      <description>CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding recovery of CENVAT credit on outward freight charges for goods removed on FOR destination basis. The tribunal held that following SC decision in Roofit Industries, the place of removal is where ownership transfers from seller to buyer. For FOR destination sales, ownership transfers at delivery point, making freight charges includible in assessable value. Since appellant paid duty including freight charges up to destination delivery point, they were eligible for CENVAT credit on GTA services. The tribunal noted the referring bench failed to consider Board&#039;s 2018 clarification, making the earlier decision non-binding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>