AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellant-assessee. Initially, the period in dispute was from August-2006 to October-2007 and from November-2007 to July- 2008. In view of the change in definition of input service provided in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 although the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority had denied the benefit to the appellant for the entire period but the Tribunal granted the benefit of CENVAT credit to the appellant-assessee for the period upto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, from the place of removal, ........................"" By the aforesaid amendment brought into effect from 01.04.2008 (vide Notification from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue dated 01.03.2008) in Clause (l) of Rule 2 the words "clearance of final products, upto the place of removal", was substituted by "clearance of final products, from the place of removal". Subsequent to the said amendment, by Notification dated 11.07.2014 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the definition of "place of removal" was given by insertion of Rule 2(qa),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided in this appeal has to be considered in the light of the aforesaid amendments and clarification issued. 6. The specific case of the appellant-assessee is that the sale of cement was completed only after delivery was made to the buyer. Invoices were produced and filed before the assessing officer, copies of which have also been placed before us for our perusal. In the said invoice, the price of cement has been calculated keeping in view that the same was to be delivered at the address of buyer and the price term clearly mentions as "FOR destination". FOR herein stands for 'Free On Road', meaning thereby that the buyer need not pay for the transportation as the goods were to be supplied by the seller at the address of the buyer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make any difference. A perusal of invoices makes it clear that the goods were to be delivered and sale completed at the address of the buyer and no additional charge was levied by the assessee for such delivery. From these facts it is clear that the sale was completed only when the goods were received by the buyer. The Circular dated 20.10.2014 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs also, in paragraph-6 makes it clear that 'payment of transport, inclusion of transport charges in value, payment of insurance or who bears the risk are not the relevant considerations to ascertain the place of removal.' 9. As per the said Circular, the place of removal has to be ascertained in terms of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale has taken place or property in goods have passed from the seller to the buyer is the relevant consideration to determine the "place of removal". In our view, the said instructions received by the learned counsel for the respondents are not based on sound reasoning. As we have already mentioned hereinabove, paragraph-6 of the Circular dated 20.10.2014, on which the respondents rely upon, would go in favour of the appellant assessee and not the Revenue. 11. From the facts of the present case, it is clear from the invoices that title of the goods had passed on from seller to buyer only at the place of destination, which is the address of the buyer. As such, the buyer had no right over the goods till delivered to it. The Tribunal has ....