9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT ] that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was found that in circumstances where a manufacturer enters into a contract with his buyer on FOR basis, the place of removal for the purposes of payment of Central Excise duty has to be seen as the buyer's premises and not the manufacturer's factory, the upshot of the said finding was that the manufacturer, in that case, was legally obligated to include the cost of transportation of the goods from his factory to the premises of the buyer in the assessable value of the goods for the purposes of payment of Central Excise duty. In the instant cases, however, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical transformers and allied products falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period between 01.04.2012 and 28.02.2015, it had entered into contracts with various customers for the supply, installation at site and commissioning of transformers manufactured by it. The terms and conditions of the contracts entered into with the customers clearly indicated that the contracts were to be on FOR basis whereby the obligation to transport the goods from the place of manufacture to the buyer's premises was on the appellant. As a matter of fact, in connection with the said contract, the appellant had also separately taken out transit insurance for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale was concluded only at the buyer's premises, it was entitled to treat the services availed from the goods transport agencies as an input service in connection with the manufacture and supply of goods to the buyer concerned, and claim input tax credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The authorities below placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)] to find against the appellant and to hold that the place of removal of the goods was the appellant's factory, and CENVAT credit on GTA services being available only in respect of services availed up to the place of removal and not beyond it, the claim of the appellant could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion with an input service, for the purposes of claiming input tax credit of the tax paid in relation to the said services. 7. In the instant cases, however, we find that it is the admitted case that the appellant did not include the transportation costs in the assessable value of the goods for the purposes of payment of Central Excise duty. 8. Under such circumstances, we fail to see how the appellant can claim input tax credit in respect of the transportation services availed by it for the purposes of transporting the goods from the place of removal to the buyer's premises. In our view, permitting the appellant to avail input tax credit in such circumstances would militate against the very Scheme of CENVAT credit, which is designed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
