9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon ble Apex Court had held that credit of service tax paid for outward transportation of goods is not eligible. These appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Lower Adjudicating Authority who is directed to verify the documents and ascertain the place of removal. The appellant would be eligible for the CENVAT credit, in case, the Buyer s premises is the place of removal. - HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Mr. R. Parthasarathy , Consultant For the Respondent : Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram , Authorised Representative ORDER M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Ariyalur (the Appellant herein) have filed these two Central Excise Appeals Nos. E/40346 40347/2021, assailing the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 17 18/2021 dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, wherein it was held that the appellants were not eligible for the CENVAT credit availed on the outward Goods Transport Agency Services. As both the appeals involve an identical issue of eiligibility of CENVAT credit on outward Goods Transport Agency Service, these are being taken up together for disposal by this common order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for the CENVAT credit availed for the outward GTA Services. 2.4 The appellants again filed appeals before the Appellate Authority who vide Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 17 18/2021 dated 01.04.2021 confirmed the orders of the Lower Adjudicating Authority. Hence, these appeals came to be filed before this forum. 3.1 The Ld. Consultant Shri R. Parthasarathy representing the appellant has referred to the Larger Bench decision in their own case viz., M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry [Interim Order No. 40020/2023 date 21.12.2023] wherein it was observed in paragraph 35 of the Order as follows: - 35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal. 3.2 The appellant has further submitted that even after the amendment of the definition of the Input Service in cases where goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese appeals merit consideration. 3.4 The appellants further has submitted that the identical issue came up for disposal before Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Inox air Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax division and the High Court made the following observations while setting aside the order of the Hon ble CESTAT. 37. Reliance was also placed by the Tribunal on its Larger Bench Division in M/S Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs CCE, Puducherry dated 21.12.2023 wherein the Larger Bench has held that the credit availed on Outward Transportation Services is eligible when the freight charges are included in the taxable value. 38. Therefore, we hold on issues mentioned above that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that place of removal for GTA services provided under F O R sale contract is the manufacturer s premises and not the place where the goods are sold: That the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the GTA services in the present case are being received beyond the place of removal and therefore not covered within the Input Services under 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 39. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions referred supra and also the Tribunal, Chennai decisions in the appellants own cases. 6. The issue that has to be decided in these appeals is whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the outward GTA Services. 7. The issue is no more res integra as the same has been finally decided by the Larger Bench vide M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry [Interim Order No. 40020/2023 date 21.12.2023] wherein it was held as follows: - 35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal. 36. The reference is answered accordingly. The appeal shall now be listed before the Division Bench for hearing. 8. From the appeal records, it is evident that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Limited [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)], th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Emco (supra), Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon ble High of Karnataka in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. (supra). The Board Circular dated 08.06.2018 is also applicable to decide the admissibility of CENVAT credit. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- 35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal. 6. The Ld. Consultant has submitted that the sale was on FOR basis, the place of removal is the buyer s premises. Various agreements as well as the invoices have been placed before us. However, these documents require to be verified, to ascertain the place of removal. Needless to say, if the contracts are on FOR basis, the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid upto the place of removal for the disputed per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
