9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s premises and the property or ownership of the goods is transferred to the customer at the customer s premises. It is settled law that cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods till the place of removal is admissible to a manufacturer. Now it is to be decided in the present case as to whether customer s premises is place of removal. It is noted that in the case of Roofit Industries Ltd. [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT ], Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the charges which are to be added for arriving at the value of the excisable goods will have to be put up to the stage of the transfer of the ownership of the goods from the manufacturer to the buyer. In para 13 of the said order, it was observed that in that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.35,67,071/-. All the above stated five show cause notices were adjudicated through a common order-in-original dated 28.09.2018. Before the original authority, the appellant in their reply to show cause notice stated that they were removing excisable goods and the contract was for FOR destination and the property of goods remained with the manufacturer till the destination i.e. place of buyer, and the goods are sold at the premises of the buyer. They have contended that since the custody of the goods was with the manufacturer till the delivery of the goods at the purchaser s premises, the GTA service utilized from manufacturing premises to the customer s premises was input service. Learned original authority in his order-in-original has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsporting those goods and was paying charges towards transportation and service tax for the said transportation on GTA services. He has further submitted that the said issue as to whether cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services till the goods are delivered on FOR basis at the customer s premises was subject matter of Larger Bench decision in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd. and the same is decided by the Larger Bench through Interim Order No.40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 and the same is reported at 2023 (12) TMI 1332 CESTAT Chennai-LB. He has further submitted that in para 35 of the said interim order pronounced by the Larger Bench, it has been directed that cenvat credit on GTA service is admissible upto the place of removal and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmissible. 4. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. I note that it is undisputed fact that the appellant is under contract for delivery of the goods on FOR destination at the customer s premises and the goods remained in the ownership of the appellant till the goods reached customer s premises and that the sale takes place at the customer s premises and the property or ownership of the goods is transferred to the customer at the customer s premises. It is settled law that cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods till the place of removal is admissible to a manufacturer. Now it is to be decided in the present case as to whether customer s premises is place of removal. I note that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
