TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue Added Tax) credit of service tax paid on Outward Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service used for transporting final product to customer s place. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant as to why the credit availed should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules; and interest and penalty should not be imposed. Appellant contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority passed the Order in Original No.25/ADC/YPR/BIII/2014 dated 13.10.2014 disallowing and confirming the demand of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.16,26,589/-. A penalty of equal sum was also imposed. The appeal Appeal No.229-231/2017 CT rejected on 18.09.2017 filed thereon, also stood reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000/-. 8. The appeal E/20302/2018 SM disposed of on 27.02.2019 filed before the CESTAT 2015 (40) STR 645 (KAR) challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been disposed of holding that there is no infirmity in demanding the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant with regard to GTA. However, the CESTAT has set-aside the penalty holding that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. 9. Shri. Ravishankar, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that: the issue involved in these two appeals is covered by the decision of this Court in Madras Cements Ltd., Vs. Additional CCE 2015 (40) STR 645(KAR)); the Tribunal has upheld the demand by placing reliance on Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Cement 2018 (9) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear 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. 15. 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 . 16. This Court in the case of Madras Cements Ltd., has held as follows: 11. From the facts of the present case, it is clear from the invoices that title of the goods had passed on from seller to buyer only at the place of destination, which is the address of the buyer. As such, the buyer had no right over the goods till delivered to it. The Tribunal has not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 18. In the instant cases, the place of removal is buyer s premises. Therefore, the authority in the case of Madras Cements Ltd., is applicable to the facts of this case and these appeals merit consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The questions of law framed by this Court in CEAs No. 56/2019 and 71/2019 are answered in favour of the assessee holding that the Tribunal s view is unsustainable in law; (b) CEA No.56/2019 is allowed and impugned order vide Final Order Nos.21960-21962/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed in Appeals Nos. E/21756/2017-SM, E/21757/2017-SM and E/21758/2017-SM are se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
