9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in costs incurred the delivery of the goods at the buyer’s point, whereas, on the other hand Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is confined to eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of transportation undertaken by the seller/manufacturer till the buyer’s premises. The appellants should be given an opportunity to establish which is the place of removal for them and then look into the eligibility of credit on GTA services availed for outward transportation upto the buyer’s premises in the light of the judgments of M/s. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. and the Board’s Circular dated 08.06.2018 - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/40287/2015, E/40288/2015, E/40134/2018, E/40174/2018, E/40175/2018, E/41585/2018, E/41630/2018, E/42383/2016, E/40001/2018, E/40412/2018, E/42220/2018 - Final Order Nos. 40440-40450/2019 - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For Appellant: M. Karthikeyan Adv., Raghavan Ramabhadran Adv., R. Parthasarathy Cons. For Respondents: K. Veerabhadra Reddy ADC (AR), B. Balamurugan AC (AR), L. Nanda Kumar AC (AR) ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igibility of credit on Outward Transportation of Goods services. In all these appeals, the goods were to be delivered at the buyer s premises and, therefore, the place of removal would be the buyer s premises. The appellants have paid freight upto the buyer s premises and, therefore, the credit of such Outward Transportation of Goods would be eligible to them. They requested for a reconsideration of the issue on the basis of the Board s Circular. 4. The learned Authorised Representatives S/Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, B. Balamurugan, and L. Nandakumar appeared on behalf of the department. They supported the findings in the impugned order. It is emphasized that the decision of the Hon ble Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., has settled the law and the credit on Outward Transportation of goods from the factory gate upto the buyer s premises is not eligible. Regarding the Board s circular, they submitted that the Circular clearly mentions that credit is not eligible upto the buyer s premises as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd (supra). It was also submitted by them that the Single Member of this Bench has in various decisions relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable goods are to be sold can only be manufacturer s premises or premises referable to the manufacturer. If we were to accept contention of the revenue, then these words will have to be substituted by the words have been sold which would then possibly have reference to buyer s premises. 4. Exceptions : (i) The principle referred to in para 3 above would apply to all situations except where the contract for sale is FOR contract in the circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC) and CCE vs M/s.Roofit Industries Ltd 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC). To summarise, in the case of FOR destination sale such as M/s.Emco Ltd and M/s.Roofit Industries where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases. (ii) Clearance for export of goods by a manufacturer shall continue to be dealt in terms of Circular no.999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 as the judgments cited above did not deal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent brought out in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules which would be effective from 01.04.2008, where the words from the place of removal was substituted by upto the place of removal . The Apex Court has held that GTA Services availed for transportation of goods from the place of removal to buyer s premises was not admissible. Prima facie, there should not be any confusion after this judgment with regard to place of removal for availment of Cenvat credit, since the Hon ble Apex Court has very clearly used the words place of removal related to buyer s premises. 10. Learned counsels, for the appellants herein have contended that even though the definition of place of removal was incorporated in Cenvat Credit Rules from 11.07.2014 by inclusion of clause (qa) to Rule (2), the very same definition was already existing in section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act which delineated the scope of the words place of removal . As such, inclusion of the definition of place of removal from 11.07.2014 in the CCR 2004 will not have any difference to the facts of the case even for the period prior 11.7.2014. The definition of place of removal in CCR, 2004 and the decision of the Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
