TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid inter alia on Courier Service and utilized the same for payment of duty on the clearance of their final product. It was also alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the Courier Service received for transportation of final products after the same were cleared from the factory gate, was beyond the place of removal and thereby, the appellant was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 in as much as they had availed and utilized the Service Tax Credit in respect of Courier Service, which did not qualify as an input service and accordingly, it was inter alia proposed to recover the same. 1.2 The appellant filed its reply inter alia contending that they did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' with effect from 01.04.2008 cannot be the buyer's premises and the same is not covered within the ambit of Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. J. Shankaraman, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee and Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Ld. Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue. 4.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted at the outset that the period involved is from July 2015 to March 2016 and that the same issue has been dealt with by this Bench for an earlier period in the appellant's own case decided vide Final Order Nos. 41790-41791 of 2015 (supra) and that therefore, the issue is no more res integra. 4.2 He also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FOR basis. The authorities below have disallowed the credit holding that there is no evidence to establish that the sale is on FOR basis. It is not necessary that there should be a separate contract for supply of goods. The parties can agree to the terms and conditions of the sale in the purchase orders itself. This becomes a concluded contract when the offer is accepted by the supplier/buyer. Therefore, when the purchase orders itself show that the condition for sale is FOR basis, the observations made by the authorities below that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence/contract establishing that they have borne the freight charges, insurance, etc., is without any factual basis and unacceptable. 6.2 Further, in the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order-in-Original or the Order-in-Appeal on this. 8.2 Ld. Advocate for the appellant has also referred to the table filed in its written submissions before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is filed at page 19 of the Appeal Memorandum, indicating the break-up, to contend that the Service Tax element involved in respect of Courier Service (Outward) to its customers is only Rs. 2,55,442/-, the working for which was also provided along with the above written submissions. 8.3 The earlier order of this Bench in the appellant's own case (supra) was passed on 31.12.2015 and thereafter, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) has now settled the issue. Further, the other decision of this Bench in t....