9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1319 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service - Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for outward transportation during the period April 2017 to June 2017 - HELD THAT - The authorities below have recorded that they did not find any documentary evidence to establish that the transfer of property had taken place on reaching premises of buyer. The purchase orders and tax invoices placed on record by the appellant as annexures to the appeal and noticed that no separate amount has been charged by the appellant from its customer for delivery of the goods upto the customer s place. Purchase orders contained terms like Freight paid by the supplier Freight inclusive or Freight N.A;. In the tax invoices and the challans the mode of despatch has been mentioned as by road without reference to any separate amount of freight or transportation. Conclusion - In the facts of the case herein place of removal is the premises of buyer and not the factory gate of the appellant. Therefore the appellant is entitled to take credit of Service Tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation of the goods. Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue under consideration is whether the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for outward transportation during the period April 2017 to June 2017 is admissible as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This involves determining the 'place of removal' in the context of the appellant's contractual obligations and whether the customer's premises can be considered as such. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, defines 'input service'. Prior to April 1, 2008, it included services used by the manufacturer in relation to the clearance of final products 'from the place of removal'. Post-amendment, this was changed to 'upto the place of removal'. Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, defines the 'place of removal' as the factory gate, warehouse, or depot/premises of a consignment agent, excluding the purchaser's premises. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T. vs. Ultratech Cement and the CBEC circular dated June 8, 2018, are pivotal. The Supreme Court clarified that post-amendment, credit is permissible only up to the place of removal, not beyond, and the circulars from the unamended regime cannot be applied. The Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. CCT, Bangalore, and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry, have interpreted similar issues, emphasizing that the place of removal could be the buyer's premises if the contractual terms indicate that the transfer of ownership occurs at the buyer's location. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the contractual terms indicated an obligation to deliver goods to the customer's premises, with ownership transferring upon delivery. This was supported by purchase orders and tax invoices showing that freight charges were included in the sale price, and no separate freight was charged. The Tribunal also examined certificates from customers confirming the appellant's obligation to deliver goods at their premises without additional transportation charges. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal found that the appellant's documentary evidence, including purchase orders and tax invoices, consistently indicated that the freight was included in the sale price and no separate charges were levied for transportation. The contractual terms and customer certificates supported the appellant's claim that the place of removal was the buyer's premises. Application of Law to Facts Applying the legal framework and precedents, the Tribunal determined that the place of removal, in this case, was the customer's premises due to the contractual obligation to deliver goods there. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on GTA services for transportation to the customer's premises. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Ultratech Cement and the CBEC circular, which emphasized the amended definition of 'input service'. However, it distinguished the present case based on the specific contractual terms and evidence demonstrating the transfer of ownership at the buyer's premises. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case fell within the scope of permissible credit under the amended rules, as the place of removal was the customer's premises, not the factory gate. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the disputed Cenvat Credit. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit on GTA services for outward transportation, as the place of removal was deemed to be the buyer's premises based on the contractual obligations and evidence provided. This decision aligns with the principles established in the Supreme Court's and High Court's rulings, emphasizing the importance of contractual terms in determining the place of removal. Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces the principle that the determination of the place of removal is contingent on the specific contractual obligations and evidence of ownership transfer. It underscores the necessity to evaluate each case on its merits, considering the contractual terms and the factual matrix. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the right to avail Cenvat Credit on the GTA service for outward transportation to the customer's premises, thereby recognizing the customer's premises as the place of removal.
|
