9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1167 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Goods Transport Agency Services utilized for outward transportation of goods from their factory to the customer s premises - place of removal - period from Apr. 17 to Jun. 17 - HELD THAT - The delivery is free on road . The appellant has not collected any freight charges from the buyer. So also, the risk on the goods is on the appellant as per Condition No.23 of the purchase order. All these would go to show that the sale took place at the buyer s premises. The freight charges are included in the assessable value for discharging the excise duty - In the instant case, the facts reveal that the freight charges have been included in the assessable value and no separate freight has been collected from the purchaser though the goods have been delivered at the buyer s premises. The decision in COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT will apply to determine the place of removal. Thus, the finding by the authorities that the place of removal is the factory gate and not the buyer s premises is factually wrong. The denial of credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer s premises is unjustified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on Goods Transport Agency Services for outward transportation of goods up to the buyer's premises. Analysis: The case involved the question of whether the appellant was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services utilized for outward transportation of goods up to the buyer's premises. The department contended that the credit was not eligible as the place of removal was considered to be the factory gate. The appellant argued that the sale was on a Free on Road (F.O.R.) basis, with the freight charges included in the assessable value for excise duty discharge, indicating that the sale took place at the buyer's premises. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise vs. Roofit Industries Ltd., which held that in F.O.R. sales, the place of removal is the buyer's premises. The appellant further cited a Board circular clarifying the eligibility of credit in such cases. The Tribunal's previous decisions in similar cases were also referenced to support the appellant's argument. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the place of removal was the factory gate based on findings of the authorities below and referred to a decision in a different case supporting this view. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, emphasizing that the sale in the present case took place at the buyer's premises, as evidenced by the terms of the purchase order and the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision and previous Tribunal decisions to conclude that the denial of credit was unjustified. It held that the appellant was eligible for the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods up to the buyer's premises. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs.
|
