2019 (4) TMI 1949 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - output transportation charges incurred by them for delivery of their excisable goods from factory to the premises of the buyer - Penalty - HELD THAT - The transportation and insurance charges are reimbursed by the buyer of the goods and do not form part of the sale value or transaction value it is held that the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit on the outward GTA service received. Penalty - HELD THAT - The issue is wholly interpretational in nature. Accordingly the penalty imposed is set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to cenvat credit on output transportation charges incurred by the appellant for delivery of excisable goods.

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was whether the appellant, a manufacturer of insulators, is entitled to cenvat credit on output transportation charges for delivering excisable goods to the buyer's premises. The appellant's goods were sold directly to companies or buyers under purchase orders with terms specified as FOR destination. The goods were to be delivered in good condition at the buyer's door, with any risk of damage during delivery borne by the appellant. The purchase orders included fixed transport charges per insulator from the factory to the place of delivery. The appellant cleared goods on excisable invoice-cum-delivery challans, charged excise duty with VAT, and reflected agreed freight and insurance per insulator in the invoice.

The Revenue contended that the place of removal was the factory gate of the appellant, and as per the amended definition of "input service," the appellant was not entitled to cenvat credit for the period in dispute. The Revenue also argued that since transportation and insurance charges were reimbursed by the buyer, these charges did not form part of the sale value, justifying the disallowance of cenvat credit. The appellant had availed cenvat credit on output transportation charges and utilized input credit for central excise duty payment.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The appellant's counsel emphasized the risk in transit borne by the manufacturer and relied on previous Tribunal rulings and a Supreme Court judgment to support the eligibility of cenvat credit on transportation charges up to the place of removal. The appellant's position was that the place of removal was the buyer's door, making them eligible for cenvat credit on the outward GTA service in dispute.

After evaluating the contentions, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to cenvat credit on outward GTA service as the transportation and insurance charges were reimbursed by the buyer and did not form part of the sale value. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue was interpretational in nature and set aside the penalty imposed, allowing the appeal in part. The judgment highlighted the importance of the place of removal and the inclusion of transportation charges in the sale value to determine cenvat credit eligibility.