9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he position has become absolutely changed, i.e. the benefit which was admissible beyond the place of removal so as to avail the cenvat credit stands redundant. It is only upto the place of removal that the service can be treated as input service whereupon the cenvat credit can be availed. The place of removal is the place from where the finally manufactured product is cleared after payment of excise duty. Thus any expense incurred beyond this point is not to be included in the value as such will not be the input thereby no cenvat credit will be available on any such expense - GTA service being the services beyond the place of removal therefore cannot be considered as the input services. Credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2016 holding that cenvat credit availed is in respect of outward transportation from place of removal to the customer‟s place, as such, is not available to appellant. However amount denied as Cenvat Credit is mentioned as ₹ 16,29,734/- in the orders of both adjudicating authorities below instead of proposed amount of ₹ 3,87,332/-. There is no apparent reason in the order for the same. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order under challenge has confirmed the findings. Hence, the appeal is before us. 3. We have heard Shri D.K. Tyagi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri K. Poddar, Ld. DR for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional Commr. Of C. Ex., Bangalore 2015(40) S.T.R. 645 (Kar.) 6. Ld. DR while justifying the Order has placed further emphasis upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. S.T. Vs. Ultra Tech Cement 2018(9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and has prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion as follows:- The moot question to be adjudicated in the present case is as to whether the value of outward transportation in the case of sale to the customer, has to be the part of the transaction value so as to entitle the appellant to avail the cenvat credit or not. 8. For the purpose, the definition of input service is relevant. Input service is defined in Rule 2(1) of the Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval even to the customer s place or anywhere else were excisable for cenvat credit. However, after the amendment the position has become absolutely changed, i.e. the benefit which was admissible beyond the place of removal so as to avail the cenvat credit stands redundant. The Hon ble Apex Court in Ultra Tech Cement (supra) case has observed as follows: Credit availability is in regard to inputs . The credit covers duty paid on input materials as well as tax paid on services, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product . The final products, manufactured by the assessee in their factory premises and once the final products are fully manufactured and cleared from the factory premises, the question of utilization ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they shall have the same meaning for the Cenvat Credit Rules. The word place of removal has been defined in Section 4 sub-clause C of Central Excise Act, 1944: place of removal means (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place on premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty;] (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods re to be sold after their clearance from the factory; 8.3 In a previous decision also i.e. in M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ludhia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the buyer. But in view of the entire above discussion, the place of removal in such circumstances cannot be considered as place of buyer. 10. As a result of entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that it is only upto the place of removal that the service can be treated as input service whereupon the cenvat credit can be availed. The place of removal as discussed above is the place from where the finally manufactured product is cleared after payment of excise duty. Thus any expense incurred beyond this point is not to be included in the value as such will not be the input thereby no cenvat credit will be available on any such expense. GTA service being the services beyond the place of removal therefore cannot be considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
