2019 (5) TMI 1618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are that in the course of scrutiny of the record of the appellant by AGMP it appeared to Revenue that appellant has taken cenvat credit of Rs. 11,49,328/- of service tax paid on outward freight, which does not qualify as input service under Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 03 March, 2014 was issued for the period 2009-10 to September, 2013 invoking the larger period of limitation requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the cenvat credit of Rs. 11,49,328/- should not be disallowed and recovered with proposal to impose penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated, on contest, the proposed demand was confirmed alongwith equal amount of penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of the goods retaining right of disposal, benefit of cenvat credit was held to be available to the manufacturer assessee. 4. Learned Counsel further points out that taking notice of the divergent views taken by the Apex Court on the issue of 'place of removal', the CBEC have issued Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08 Jun. 2018 and after referring to the aforementioned rulings of the Apex Court, it is clarified that for determination of place of removal, in general the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited may be applied. The Apex Court in this case has upheld the principle laid down in Escorts JCB to the extent that place of rem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndustries. Further, Sanghi Industries was liable for safe delivery of goods upto the customers' doorstep. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the point of sale is the customers' doorstep and that is the place of removal. Accordingly, it was held that as the goods are handed over to the buyer at his doorstep, the cost is borne by the manufacturer seller, they will be liable to freight of outward transportation. Further, under the facts and circumstances and taking notice of the precedent circular of CBEC dated 22.12.1994 and 23.08.2007 which supported the stand of the said Sanghi Industries. It was held that the extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. Learned Counsel prayed that in the similar facts and circumstan....