M/S Shakunt Enterprises P. Ltd vs Cce & St, Ludhiana

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 252/ST/APPL/LDH/2012 dated 01/11/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh  I.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

M/s Shakunt Enterprises P. Ltd. Appellant

Versus

CCE & ST, Ludhiana Respondent

Appearance

Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate  for the appellant.

Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52328/2015 Dated : 22/07/2015

Per. Ashok Jindal :-

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on output transportation has been denied to the appellant on the premise that the said does not qualify as input service. The facts of the case are that the appellant is procuring purchase orders whereas the goods are to be delivered at the works of the buyer. The Revenues case is that outward transportation is for the goods cleared ex-factory therefore the said transportation charges are not entitled for Cenvat credit.

2. Heard the parties and perused the records. In this case the short dispute is that in case where goods are to be delivered at the buyers place and the transportation charges has been included in the assessable value and the ownership of the goods were with the appellant till delivery of the goods in that situation whether appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation charges or not. The lower authority is not disputing all these facts the only contention of the lower authority is that the purchase order does not show the goods are to be delivered at the buyers place. We examine one of the purchase order which is reproduce below :-

3. The said purchase order shows that goods are to be delivered at the buyers place therefore the lower authority has erred in recording correct fact on record. As appellant has delivered the goods at buyers place in that circumstances appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on service tax paid on outward transportation charges. In these circumstances, we hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit, in question. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

4