Case Law Details
M/s Groz Beckert Asia Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.E (Cestat Chandigarh)
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders, wherein the Cenvat credit availed on courier service has been denied on the ground that the appellant is selling the goods at their factory gate, therefore, for the courier service, they are not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is sending the goods through courier and till the goods reach to the buyer’s place, the appellant is the owner of the goods. In case, the buyer refused to take the delivery of the goods, the goods were returned by courier to them. In that circumstance, till the delivery of the goods to the buyer, they are the owner of the goods; therefore, in view of the CBCE Circular No. 1065/4/2018 dt. 08.06.2018, they are entitled to avail the Cenvat credit.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. submits that the appellants are not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit as they are selling the goods at their factory gate by delivering the goods through courier and charging C.S.T. thereon. Therefore, when they are charging C.S.T., it means that they have sold the goods at the factory gate.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
5. In this case, the dispute has been raised by the Ld. A.R. if C.S.T. has been charged, it means the goods have been delivered at factory gate. I have considered the arguments in advance made by the Ld. A.R. As per by the version of Ld. A.R. if the goods are delivered at the buyer’s place, C.S.T. is not required to be charged. This is not the mandate of law. In fact, for any inter state sale, C.S.T. is required to be charged by any seller of the goods. By charging C.S.T. does not make the goods are sold at the factory gate. In fact, we have to see that in terms of the CBCE Circular No. 1065/4/2018 dt. 08.06.2018, what is the place of removal. In this case, the goods were sold through courier and till the goods are delivered to the buyer, the appellant is the owner of the goods, as in case, buyers refuse to take the delivery of the goods, it is the duty of the courier to return back the goods to the appellant. In that circumstance, I hold that the goods have been delivered by the appellant at buyer’s place and the place of buyer is the place of removal in facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on courier service. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned orders, the same are set aside.
In result, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
