M/S. Nicks India Tools vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-592-13-14 dated 21.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), New Delhi].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Nicks India Tools .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri V.P. Batra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 07.04.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51385/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the input services credit on outward transportation services has been denied for the period April 2010 to September 2010.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts. The appellant is availing input services credit on outward transportation services. A show cause notice was issued to deny input services credit on outward transportation services on the premises that the transportation charges are beyond the place of removal. The show cause notice was adjudicated and both the lower authorities denied the Cenvat Credit to the appellant. Consequently, duty is demanded along with interest and penalty is also imposed.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant are selling goods on FOR basis against the purchase orders received from the buyers and same is evident from the sample copies of the invoices produced before the Ld. Commissioner (A). Therefore, they are entitled for input services credit on outward transportation services as they have complied with the conditions of the Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007. Therefore, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied.

4. On the other hand the Ld. AR submits that the appellant has not produced the invoices along with purchase orders before the lower authorities. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the goods were to be supplied by the appellant on FOR basis and they are having the ownership of the goods till the delivery to the buyer.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.

6. In this case the short issue before me is that whether the appellant is entitled to take input services credit on outward transportation service, if goods are supplied on FOR basis and against the purchase orders of the buyers which clearly specifies that goods are to be supplied to their place and insurance charges to be borne by the appellant or not? On perusal of the sample purchase orders and invoices the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit but the invoices pertains to the period August 2010 and disputing period is April 2010 to September 2010. Therefore, matter needs examination at the end of Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the facts that goods as per the purchase orders were to be supplied on FOR basis. If goods are to be supplied on FOR basis in that case appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit.

7. With these observation impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the fact whether the goods were supplied on FOR basis or not only for this limited purpose. If goods are supplied on FOR basis, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit otherwise not.

8. In these terms appeal is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/50937/2014-EX(SM)