Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Ce & St, Guntur vs M/S Hindustan Coca Cola on 26 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No. E/20385/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 68/2014 (G) CE dt. 27.11.2014 passed by CC, CE & ST (Vizag Appeal-II), Guntur) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CC, CE & ST, Guntur ..Appellant(s) Vs. M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd., ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Sh. Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant.
Sh. Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 26.09.2016 Date of Decision: 26.09.2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and registered with the Central Excise Department. The respondent sells its goods to its customers on Free on Road (FOR) basis wherein transportation charges are fully borne by the respondent. Department issued a show cause notice denying the credit of service tax paid on transportation charges on the contention that the buyers premises cannot be considered as the place of removal in terms of definition of input service.
2. The issue stands covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the appellants own case reported in 2016-TIOL-1887-CESTAT-HYD. The CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 clarifies that credit is admissible for transportation to the buyers premises in case the goods are cleared on FOR destination basis. Following the decision laid in the respondents own case I hold that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal filed by revenue is dismissed. (Pronounced & dictated in open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Jaya.
2