2017 (8) TMI 1542 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation - cost of transportation was included in the F.O.R. - HELD THAT - The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. JAIPUR-II 2017 (3) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where the ratio laid down in the case of M/S MADRAS CEMENTS LTD VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) 2015 (7) TMI 1001 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT was followed and it was held that appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on outward goods transportation agency services - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-original disallowing cenvat credit on outward transportation
- Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 regarding cenvat credit
- Application of previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-original disallowing cenvat credit on outward transportation by the appellant, engaged in manufacturing asbestos cement sheets and pipes falling under Chapter 68 & 70 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had claimed cenvat credit on service tax paid for outward transportation, which was included in the F.O.R. However, the department did not allow the credit, leading to the appeal. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate and the Revenue's representative presented their arguments. The Tribunal noted a similar issue in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-II, where the decision in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. vs. Additional Commr. Bangalore was followed. The Tribunal held that since the goods were supplied on FOR basis to the buyer's place with transportation costs included in the assessable value, the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit on outward transportation agency services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

The Tribunal, based on its earlier order and the precedent set by the Madras Cements Ltd. case, found no reason to uphold the impugned order disallowing the cenvat credit on outward transportation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a conclusion.