9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 593 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - input services - direct sale points in Kolkata can be considered as place of removal for the goods manufactured in the factory premises or not - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the factory premises of the appellant or the direct shop at Kolkata would be the place of removal of the goods was the issue that arose for consideration before the Allahabad Regional Bench of the Tribunal in M/S INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CGST, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR 2023 (10) TMI 1464 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where it was held that 'Once it is established that the appellant were paying duty on the value at which the bikes were sold from the direct shop at Kolkata then there cannot be any reason for not allowing the Cenvat Credit in respect of the services received at depot.' The factual position in the appeal decided by the Allahabad Bench and the present appeal is identical. In fact, the appellant in both the appeals is India Yamaha Motor Private Limited. There are no good reason to take a different view from the view taken in Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and, accordingly, it is held that the place of removal would be the direct shop at Kolkata and not the factory premises. The impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner is, accordingly, set aside - the appeal is allowed.
Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant by the Commissioner - Determination of the "place of removal" for excisable goods - Interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Applicability of previous tribunal decisions Analysis: The judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant by the Commissioner, based on the determination of the "place of removal" for excisable goods. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor cycles and spare parts, availed CENVAT credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2016 rejected the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on input services for the period April 2010 to March 2015, arguing that the direct sale points in Kolkata cannot be considered as the place of removal for goods manufactured in the factory premises. The Commissioner held that the appellant failed to establish that the direct shop at Kolkata could be considered the "place of removal" for the goods. It was emphasized that the place of removal could be the factory premises, warehouse, or depot, depending on the facts of the case. The appellant's contention that the direct shop at Kolkata constituted the place of removal was not substantiated with concrete evidence, such as certification of the premises as a registered place of removal or details of value addition during transportation. In response, the appellant cited a decision by the Allahabad Regional Bench of the Tribunal, supporting their claim that the direct shop at Kolkata should be recognized as the place of removal. The Tribunal, in line with previous decisions and legal provisions, concluded that the direct shop at Kolkata indeed constituted the place of removal for the appellant's goods, rejecting the Commissioner's stance that the factory premises should be considered the place of removal. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly determining the place of removal for excisable goods to ascertain the value for payment of duty. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal and affirming that the direct shop at Kolkata should be recognized as the place of removal, thereby entitling the appellant to the CENVAT credit.
|
