2018 (7) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - whether credit is admissible on GTA services upto the buyers premises for outward transportation of goods? - Held that - The issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer s premises was not admissible to the respondent - credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods up to the buyer's premises.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit on GTA services for transporting goods up to the buyer's premises. The appellant, a manufacturer of Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems, had been denied credit by the Revenue on the grounds that the place of removal was limited to the factory gate or warehouse, not extending to the customer's place or place of delivery. The appellant's contentions included that the sale occurred at the customer's place based on contractual agreements, and it was their responsibility to ensure safe transportation and successful installation at the customer's premises. The appellant cited relevant judgments and circulars to support their arguments.

The departmental representative argued that the issue had been conclusively addressed by the Supreme Court in previous cases, interpreting the concept of "place of removal" in relation to Cenvat credit eligibility. The representative relied on specific judgments to support their stance.

The Judicial Member analyzed the contentions and referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and the concept of "place of removal." Citing the Supreme Court's decision, the Member concluded that Cenvat credit for GTA services up to the buyer's premises was not admissible to the appellant. The Member also referenced a relevant Board's circular clarifying the Supreme Court's position on the matter. The decision was based on the applicability of previous judgments to the period in question, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.

In summary, the judgment determined that the appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit on GTA services for transporting goods up to the buyer's premises based on the interpretation of relevant rules and previous judicial decisions. The decision highlighted the significance of the "place of removal" in determining credit admissibility and applied the Supreme Court's rulings to dismiss the appeals.