2019 (8) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on the C.B.I.C. Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX in F. No 116/23/2018-CX-3 dated 08.06.2018 and submitted that the Board has clarified that the decisions of Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T. Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex., Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.) do not deal with the issue of sale on 'FOR' destination basis and therefore, the individual cases are required to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case. He further submitted that the goods are supplied on 'FOR' basis at the customer's place in the case on hand and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Ceme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sionerate in Appeal No. E/20302/2018 vide Final Order No. 20224/2019 dated 27.02.2019 wherein the Ld. Single Member of the Tribunal has held against the assessee following the decision in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra). 2.2.3 Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Nagpur Vs. M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 670 (S.C.) which has exclusively dealt with the valuation aspect vis-à-vis the place of removal, wherein the following observations are made : "24. It will thus be seen that, in law, it is clear that for the period from 28-9-1996 up to 1-7-2000, the place of removal has reference only to places from which goods are to be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Board Circular (supra) in the above case; and that the issue as to the place of delivery on 'FOR' destination basis is neither considered nor discussed by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. Heard both sides, have gone through the documents placed on record and have also perused the Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX (supra) relied on by both the parties. 5.1 In response to the Show cause Notice, the assessee-appellant vide its reply dated 18.10.2013 has explained that as per the orders placed by its customers, the deliveries were to be effected at the door of the purchasers i.e., on 'FOR' destination basis. This was for the reasons of safe delivery of the goods in which there was always the scope of inherent risk considering the nature of goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 'input service' and whether the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit correctly or not?" and the same is answered by the Lordships as under : "7. On hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that in view of the amended definition of "input service" w.e.f. 1-3-2008 as also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra), judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law and the demand is liable to be revived. However, the present matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the question of penalty. 8. In view of above discussion, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 10-10-2017 passed by the Trib....