M/s. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. Versus CCE, CGST & ST, Indore
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1394 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 29-1-2018
Excise Appeals Nos. 51790-51799 and 51940/2017 – Final Order No. 50641-50651/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member ( Judicial )
Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate for the appellant
Shri K. Podar, DR for the respondent
ORDER
Per S.K. Mohanty
The issue involved in these appeals are identical. Accordingly, with consent of both the sides, the same are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of Dry Battery Cells, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For delivery of the goods at buyer's premises, the appellants avails the services of goods transport agency and pays outward freight on such transportation. In the capacity
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on outward freight upto the place of removal. Consequent upon the remand directions contained in the order dated 28.08.2015, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise took up the de novo adjudication proceedings and passed the orders dated 31.05.2016 and 31.03.2017 in disallowing the cenvat benefit to the appellant. On appeal, the adjudication orders were upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders 28.04.2017 and 7.9.2017. Being dis-satisfied with the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that as per the agreement entered into between the appellant and its buyers, the place of delivery of the goods is at the factory of the buyer and the appellant incurred the freight and insurance element for such transportation of the goods for delivery at the buyers' premises. He further submits that considering the amount of freight as a part of a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of taking of cenvat credit. The ld. Advocate has also produced certificate of the Chartered Accountant to demonstrate that the ownership/title of the goods during the disputed period were passed on by the appellant at its buyer's premises.
4. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant has only submitted the sample copy of the purchase orders and invoices in relation to one buyer and the same cannot be considered as the proper documents for deciding the issues involved in the bunch of appeals, involving different buyers. Thus, he submits that for verification of the factual aspect, the matter should go back to the Original Authority.
5. Heard both the sides and examined the case records.
6. The term “input service” has been defined under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said definition underwent amendments from time to time. For the period from August, 2005 to March
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ect of amendment was that the Phrase “from the place of removal” was substituted by “upto the place of removal”. As per the amended provisions of definition of “input service”, service tax paid on freight for transportation of goods “upto the place of removal” should only merit consideration as input service. In this case, I find the purchase order issued by one of the buyers, M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. shows that the delivery of the goods was on FOR destination basis. As per the terms of the purchase order, the appellant had issued invoice, showing all inclusive rate (including freight) and paid the central excise duty on such assessable value. Since the goods were delivered at the buyer's premises, the place of delivery should merit consideration as “input service” for the purpose of extending the cenvat benefit of service tax paid on the outward freight amount by the appellant. Therefore, the freight paid by the appellant from 1.4.2008 to 10.07.2014 should merit consideration as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sferred from the appellant to its buyers at their premises and the transaction was on FOR destination basis, the service tax paid on freight element should be eligible for cenvat benefit.
9. However, since the appellant, at this juncture, has not produced all the copies of the purchase orders/invoices in respect of all the buyers and only submitted sample copies issued by few numbers of buyers, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the Original Authority for verification of the purchase orders/invoices in respect of the buyers, to whom the goods were sold by the appellant on FOR destination basis. If the Original Authority is satisfied that the ownership /title of the goods passed on by the appellant at its buyer's premises, the service tax paid on the freight element should be extended to the appellant as cenvat benefit. Since the period involved in these appeals are very old, the Original Authority should complete the adjudication proceedings, preferably within a period
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =