2017 (8) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - transportation charges incurred towards the outward transportation of goods to the branch/depot - Held that - the issue is no more res integra and is settled in favor of the appellant in the case of M/s S.K.S. Ispat & Power Limited Versus CCE & ST Raipur 2016 (11) TMI 471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it has been held that appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods from the factory to the depot/ branches - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- CENVAT credit eligibility on service tax paid for outward transportation of goods to branch/depot
- Interpretation of place of removal for CENVAT credit purposes
- Compliance with CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007

Analysis:
1. CENVAT Credit Eligibility: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and clearance of Concrete AD Mixture, availed CENVAT credit on outward freight for transporting goods to branch/depot. The issue was whether this credit was permissible only up to the factory gate or extended to depot/branches. The appellant argued in favor citing Board Circular and judicial precedents supporting credit eligibility for transportation to depot/branches only, not customers. The Tribunal agreed, referencing precedents like SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE and Menon Pistons Ltd. Vs. CCE, allowing the appeals and setting aside the demand for disallowance and recovery.

2. Place of Removal Interpretation: The respondent contended that the factory gate was the place of removal, limiting credit eligibility to that point. They argued that for destination as the place of removal, specific conditions from CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007-ST must be met. The appellant countered, presenting documents showing goods as stock transfers with no VAT/CST charged, indicating ownership retention till destination. The Tribunal, after reviewing the arguments and documents, found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the ownership did not transfer until reaching the depot/branches.

3. Compliance with CBEC Circular: While the respondent highlighted the necessity of fulfilling CBEC Circular conditions for claiming destination as place of removal, the appellant demonstrated compliance through invoices, delivery challans, and a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Tribunal, considering the submissions and relied-upon judgments like Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE and Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, concluded that the appellant met the Circular requirements, warranting the allowance of CENVAT credit on outward transportation of goods to depot/branches.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, after thorough analysis and referencing relevant legal precedents, allowed both appeals, rejecting the disallowance of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for outward transportation of goods to depot/branches. The judgment emphasized the settled nature of the issue in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and interpretations, providing consequential relief as applicable.