9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 807 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - outward Goods Transport Agency Services - place of removal - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra as the same has been finally decided by the Larger Bench vide M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY 2024 (7) TMI 680 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein it was held ' in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal.' From the appeal records, it is evident that in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court had held that credit of service tax paid for outward transportation of goods is not eligible. These appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Lower Adjudicating Authority who is directed to verify the documents and ascertain the place of removal. The appellant would be eligible for the CENVAT credit, in case, the Buyer s premises is the place of removal.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on outward Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services. 2. Determination of the "place of removal" for the purpose of CENVAT credit eligibility. 3. Application of legal precedents and circulars in determining the place of removal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Outward GTA Services: The core issue in these appeals is whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the outward Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services. The appellant, a cement manufacturer, availed CENVAT credit on the service tax paid for outward transportation of cement sold on an "FOR destination" basis. The jurisdictional department objected to this availment, leading to the issuance of Show Cause Orders (SODs) and subsequent disallowance of the credit by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The appellant's contention is that since the sale was on an FOR basis, the place of removal should be considered as the customer's premises, making them eligible for the credit. 2. Determination of the "Place of Removal": The determination of the "place of removal" is crucial in deciding the eligibility for CENVAT credit. The appellant argues that the place of removal should be the customer's premises, as the goods were sold on an FOR destination basis, meaning the transfer of property in goods occurs only upon delivery to the customer. This argument is supported by various legal precedents, including the decisions in the cases of Roofit Industries and Bharat Fritz Werner, which emphasize the need to ascertain the place of removal based on the terms of sale and delivery. 3. Application of Legal Precedents and Circulars: The appellant referenced several legal precedents and circulars to support their case. Notably, the Larger Bench decision in M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry, emphasized the need to ascertain the place of removal by applying judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, along with relevant Board Circulars. The appellant also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ultra Tech Cement Limited, which clarified that CENVAT credit on GTA services is not admissible beyond the factory gate unless the buyer's premises is determined as the place of removal. The Tribunal acknowledged these arguments and noted that the issue is no longer res integra, as the Larger Bench has provided guidance on determining the place of removal in FOR contract cases. The Tribunal emphasized that if the buyer's premises is the place of removal, the appellant would be eligible for the credit. The Tribunal also noted that the agreements and invoices provided by the appellant require verification to ascertain the place of removal. Conclusion: The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Lower Adjudicating Authority for verification of documents to determine the place of removal. If it is established that the buyer's premises is the place of removal, the appellant would be eligible for CENVAT credit on the outward GTA services. This decision aligns with the judicial discipline and precedents cited, including the Larger Bench's decision and the Tribunal's own previous rulings in similar cases. The remand aims to ensure that the factual details are thoroughly examined in light of the applicable legal framework.
|
