TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessable value on which the excise duty was discharged, therefore, the place of removal is customer's place and up to the customer's place, Cenvat credit on GTA is admissible. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Panoli Interdmediates India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (5) TMI 1405 Salasar Copper 2019 (4) TMI 11 CESTAT-AMD. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2019 (2) TMI 1487-CES-AMD. 3. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: CCE vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC) Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2018 (13) GSTL J101 (SC) ALkraft Thermotechnologies P. Ltd. 2019 TIOL 3180 CES-AMD CCE vs Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 TIOL 181 CES-M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch case when the sale of the goods is completed at the doorstep of the Customer or depot/ stockist as the case may be the point of sale shall be such doorstep. We find that the Circular No. 1065/4/2018 - CX dt. 08.06.2018 issued by the CBEC in this context clarifies as under : 3. General Principle: As regards determination of 'place of removal', in general the principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC) may be applied. Apex Court, in this case has upheld the principle laid down in M/s Escorts JCB (Supra) to the extent that 'place of removal' is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale' with the condition that place of removal (premises) is to be referred with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apply to all situations except where the contract for sale is FOR contract in the circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015(322) ELT 394(SC) and CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd 2015(319) ELT 221(SC). To summarise, in the case of FOR destination sale such as M/s Emco Ltd and M/s Roofit Industries where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases. 5. We find that the Chartered/ Cost Accountant has certified that the goods were sold on FOR basis by the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be included while ascertaining the valuation of the goods manufactured by the buyer. That is the plain meaning which has to be assigned to Section 4 read with Valuation Rules. 13. In the present case, we find that most of the orders placed with the respondent assessee were by the various Government authorities. One such order, i.e., order dated 24-6-1996 placed by Kerala Water Authority is on record. On going through the terms and conditions of the said order, it becomes clear that the goods were to be delivered at the place of the buyer and it is only at that place where the acceptance of supplies was to be effected. Price of the goods was inclusive of cost of material, Central Excise duty, loading, transportation, transit risk and unlo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer." 15. These are clear finding of facts on the aforesaid lines recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the CESTAT did not take into consideration all these aspects and allowed the appeal of the assessee by merely referring to the judgment in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. Obviously the exact principle laid down in the judgment has not been appreciated by the CESTAT. 16. As a result, order of the CESTAT is set aside and present appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. From the above judgment it....