9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] , CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd [ 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] , CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd [ 2015 (8) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT] and CCE ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd [ 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] , in order to bring clarity to the matter. At para 3 of the Circular, it was stated that the principle laid by the Hon ble Supreme Court was that the place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold can only be manufacturer s premises or premises referable to the manufacturer. As per the analysis of the various judgments by Board s Circular dated 8.6.2018, in the case of consignments that have been sold on an FOR basis, where the ownership, ris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit of an amount of Rs.7,28,423/-. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand, consequent to which the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide Order in Appeal dated 23.8.2018, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40791 to 40795/2019 dated 13.5.2019 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Roofit Industries . On remand, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs.7,28,423/- and appropriated the amount which was reversed by the appellant based on the Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Larger Bench of this Tribunal vide Interim Order No. 40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 [2023 (12) TMI 1332 CESTAT CHENNAI-LB) examined the issue whether buyer s premises can be considered as place of removal for allowing credit on GTA services. It was held that the place of removal shall be determined following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roofit Industries (supra), and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. and Mapal India Private Bangalore [2022 (7) TMI 352 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). Following the Larger Bench decision supra. Further at para 4 of Circular No. 1065/4/2018-EX dated 08.06.2018 (F. No.116/23/2018-CX-3) FOR sales has been clarified as an excepti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs premises when the sale was on FOR destination basis, hence this issue is no longer res integra and the appeal may be rejected 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue regarding the credit of GTA services hinges on the term Place of Removal under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017. The same was examined by the Board vide Circular No.1065/4/2018-CX, F. No.116/23/2018-CX-3, 8th June, 2018 in the light of the following judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd 2015(319) ELT 221(SC), CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd 2015(324) ELT670 (SC), CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015(322) ELT 394(SC) and CCE ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd dated 1.2.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 (12) TMI 1332 -CESTAT Chennai LB], has had an occasion to examine whether CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods from the factory to the buyer s premises be denied in cases where the goods are sold on FOR (buyer s premises) basis. The order after examining a host of judgments including Ultra Tech Cement (supra), and Boards circular dated 08/06/2018 (supra) issued after the Ultra Tech Cement judgment, held that the place of removal whether at the factory premises or at the buyer s premises has to be ascertained by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries. 7. Hence as per the analysis of the various judgments by Board s Circular dated 8.6.2018, in the case of consignments that ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Invoice value is inclusive of freight charges. It is seen that the price of goods supplied to the customer is on FOR destination basis and M/s. RBL s responsibility continues till the goods are delivered to the customer at their premises. 9. However, he disregarded the terms of the remand and the facts of the matter in the light of his interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in Ultra Tech Cement (Supra) and upheld the demand. I find that the facts of the case as stated in the OIO clearly satisfy the Exceptions at para 4 of the Boards Circular dated 08/06/2018 and being a departmental officer, the Original Authority was bound by the Circular which has discussed the Ultra Tech judgment (supra) and should have decided accordingly. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
