TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollows. (i) Sale involved is depot sale except in a very few cases where delivery is on FOR basis from factory itself. (ii) The definition of input service in Rule 2(l) (ii) of CCR (Cenvat Credit Rules), 2004 includes the services of outward transportation from the place of removal. (iii) In support appellant relies upon following case laws: (a) M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2007 (6) STR 249 (Tri.-Del.) (b) M/s Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhavnagar 2007 (6) STR 364 (Tri.) (iv) With effect from 1.4.2008 wordings from the place of removal has been changed to up to the place of removal in definition of input service" 3.1 The appellant further submits as under: (i) The net effect of all the above even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t should be treated as the place of removal of the excisable goods. (iv) There is no dispute to the fact that majority of the sales of the appellant takes place from Depot and the cost of transportation from the factory to the Depot is borne and also included in the part of assessable value on which Central Excise duty is paid by the appellant. The assessable value determined by including the transportation up to the place of removal, that is, the depot in this case, is as per the relevant provisions of valuation and Section 4 of the Act. In such cases, the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation is allowable as clarified in the Circular No. 97/8/207 dated 23.8.2007. (v) The sales are effected either through depot or consig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the goods took place from Depot only except in a few cases where delivery has been taken by the buyer from the factory itself and where issue of claiming Cenvat credit on outward freight has not arisen. When the ownership of the goods was passed over to the buyer only after the sale had been made and it is over / completed at the depot ; then the place of removal in terms of definition of input service given in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 would be depot of the appellant only. The Revenue has failed to provide any evidence to disprove the submission of the appellant that sale of the goods took place from Depot only. The appellant also produced sample copies of purchase orders and invoices issued by them as an evidence to indicate that they made....