2017 (12) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hwani, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These three appeals are on common subject of dispute and accordingly are taken up together for disposal. The main dispute in these appeals are relating to the admissibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services by the appellants. The appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority examined the issue afresh and held that the 'point of sale' and 'place of delivery' are different in the present case and referring to the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and Board Circular dated 20/10/2014, held that the appellants are not eligible for credit of service tax paid on GTA. The third impugned order is passed on the similar lines denying the credit. One more issue is regarding e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ses of the customer upon safe delivery of the excisable goods. 3. On the credit availability on auction services, the learned Counsel relied on the assessee's own case vide Final order No.52766 of 2016 dated 11/07/2016 of the Tribunal. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. We note that the Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tinction after having recorded the factual position in para 18 of the impugned order dated 28/09/2015. In the face of such factual finding there could be no further interpretation to distinguish the place of delivery from point of sale. We find no justification for further analysis on this as made by the Original Authority to arrive at a contrary decision. The case laws relied upon by the appellan....