Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 32 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - place of removal for the GTA Services provided under a F.O.R sale contract is the manufacturer's premises and not the place where the goods are sold or not - rejection of appeal filed by the Appellant solely on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] - levy of interest under Section 11AB of CEA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the “place of removal” as per the definition contained of the said term in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Such place of removal is the place where the sales take place - It is also not in dispute that in an F.O.R sale which the appellant was doing in the instant case, freight charges form part of assessable value, the ownership of goods remains with seller till delivery at customer’s doorstep, seller bears risk of loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination, and property in the goods is not transferred till delivery. So outward transportation qualifies as ‘input service’ and is eligible for CENVAT Credit - The sale being of gases manufactured by the appellant, due to the peculiar nature, sale happens at the buyer’s premises and admittedly such sale is on F.O.R basis. In Ranadey Micronutrients etc. vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that in view of Section 37B of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, instructions issued by the Board in order to ensure uniform practice of assessment of excisable goods throughout the country get statutory status and significance, and they are binding on officers of the Central Excise Department. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that place of removal for the GTA Services provided under FOR 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 definition of Input Service under Rule 2(1) of CANVET Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.
|