TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant have not provided CAS-4 Certificate to justify the cost of the final product to ascertain that whether the freight element has been included in the cost of product or otherwise. He submits that the freight charges was borne by the appellant and the same is deemed to have been included in the sale value of the goods. He invited my attention to some sample invoices, LR's wherein, he has pointed out that no separate freight was charged to the customer and freight is included in the assessable value on which excise duty was paid. He submits that on the identical facts, this tribunal has considered the issue in hand in the case of M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENTS LIMITED Vs. CCE, KUTCHH- 2019 (2) TMI 1487-CESTAT AHMEDABAD & M/S. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2020 dated 15.10.2020 04. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit on GTA Services on the sole ground that the appellant have not supplied the CAS4 Certificate to ascertain the cost of product and whether the freight element is included or otherwise. I find that the sale of the goods is on Principle to Principle basis. As per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the transaction value at which the goods are sold has to be taken for the purpose of assessment. In case of the value arrived at, as per Section 4(1)(a) no question can be raised. Moreover, in the facts of the present case the freight is deemed to have been inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting that goods have been supplied on FOR (Free on Road) basis to their buyers. He pointed out that order-in-original in Para 8.6 has examined the facts regarding the nature of sales on FOR basis or otherwise and held that the sale is on FOR basis. He further argued that impugned order does not go into this aspect and denies Cenvat credit holding that credit would be admissible only up to the place of removal. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 4. I find that the observations of the order-in-original that goods are sold on FOR basis has not been challenged and has not been upset by the impugned order. Ld. Counsel pointed that in the case of Sanghi Industries Limited vs. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) - 2019 (2) TMI 1488 - CESTAT Ahmedabad....