TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants had failed to prove any contract between the buyer and the seller to deliver of the goods, further they have not established with documentary evidence that the sale had taken place at "FOR" destination. The second issue in dispute in appeal No. E/41827/2016 relates to denial of credit for the reason that the documents are not in the name of the appellant company, Cuddalore but issued in the name of their Head Office at Madurai. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order while taking note of Board s circular dated 23.08.2007, held that from a perusal of the invoices/purchase orders although the freight has been stated to be paid by the appellant, it is not indicated therein whether insurance was also borne by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. ADCE, Bangalore 2015 (40) STR 604 (Kar.) and CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Ultra Tech 2016 (44) STR 227 (Kar.). He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) though took cognizance of Circular N0. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 issued by the Board on the issue of eligibility of service tax paid on transportation during removal of excisable goods, however found that sample invoices of the appellant do not indicate FOR destination, that insurance were not borne by the appellant and hence it cannot be said that the goods were not sole ownership of the appellant it reaches buyer s premises and the benefit of Board s Circular cannot be extended to them. He therefore, pleads for remand of the matter for denovo consideration wherein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter based on the applicable Board Circulars and also keeping in mind the ratio laid down by a number of decisions including recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CCE Chennai-III Vs BHEL 2016 (42) STR 815 (Mad.). 5. As regards the second issue is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the primary condition to avail cenvat credit is that the invoice is to be issued by the input service distributor and is required to be a registered person; that as regards security services, it was provided by the appellants to the residence of the Managing Director at Chennai and so also repair and maintenance service was utilised by the appellants to the wi....