TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Appeal No. E/30523/ 2018 for the period August, 2014 to March, 2016. 2. According to the appellant, it is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement, falling under Chapter heading 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and it executes two types of sales namely 1. Ex-factory sales and 2. FOR sales. In the case of Ex-factory sales, transportation of the goods (cement) from the factory to the customer's premises needs to be arranged by the customer and the said sales take place at the factory gate of the appellant company. Therefore, in this mode, freight charges are not borne by the appellant and the charges are paid by the customer. In case of FOR sales, appellant bears the freight charges and also the loss if any, till the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) That the Appellant has failed to establish that the sale and transfer of property in goods occurred at buyer's premises and hence credit of the service tax paid on transportation up to buyer's premises would not be admissible. (iv) that the contention of the Appellant that they are entitled to credit as they have included the freight for payment of duty is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Escorts JCJ Limited, 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC). 4. Assailing the said order, dated 30.11.2016, passed by the primary authority, the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. Vide order dated, 14.2.2018, the Commissioner of Appeals dismissed the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise, strongly supporting the orders impugned, vehemently contends that there is no error nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that only after meticulously and thoroughly considering the entire material available on record all the authorities including the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned orders, as such, the same are not amenable for any correction by this Court in the present appeal. 9. In the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....221 (SC). To summarise, in the case of FIR 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." 9. While referring the said Circular, dated 08.6.2018, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of adjudication of the issue before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant herein filed a synopsis through his counsel and in paragraph D(10) the appellant specifically brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribuna....