Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 352 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA services received for clearance of goods “upto the place of removal” - Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The CESTAT, in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. C.C., C.E.& S.T-Commissioner of Central Tax [2019 (1) TMI 56 - CESTAT BANGALORE], has recorded in paragraph No.5 that as per the purchase orders, appellant was required to supply the goods at the buyer’s premises and the price of goods would include ‘outward freight’. Similarly, in the case of MAPAL India Pvt. Ltd. CEA 71/2019, the CESTAT has recorded a similar finding. It is clear that as per Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the definition of ‘Place of Removal’ means the premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance form the Factory - The Input Service defined in Rule 2 (1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, includes any service in relation to Outward Transportation up to the Place of Removal - The Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi, has issued Circular dated 08.06.2018 and clarified the definition, ‘Place of Removal’. In para 5 of the Circular, the Ministry has referred to the judgment in the case of CCE & ST Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] and stated that, in that case, the Apex Court has held that CENVAT Credit on GTA Service from the place of removal to the buyer’s premises is not admissible. In the instant cases, the place of removal is buyer’s premises - credit allowed - appeal allowed.
|