TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal will be the place of delivery of goods and the CENVAT Credit on services of GTA till that point will be admissible. The issue is no longer res-integra and Mumbai bench has in case of M/S. CEAT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [ 2022 (10) TMI 1213 - CESTAT MUMBAI] decided the issue following the said circular - there are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate Shri Prakhar Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Manish Raj, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER SANJIV SRIVASTAVA : This appeal is directed against order in original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod from August 2008 to March 2012 availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on Goods Transport which is nothing but outward transportation charges paid by them towards the transportation of their finished goods beyond the place of removal to their Customers. 2.3 As per the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, outward freight up to the place of removal is a valid input service for availing Cenvat credit. Appellant have taken Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the amount of outward freight paid in respect of transportation of final products up to delivery. Revenue contended that the place of removal for clearance of the finished goods of the assessee is factory gate/depot and not the cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was adjudicated as per the impugned order. Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Atul Gupta and Shri Prakhar Shukla Advocates for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Commissioner has in the impugned order observed as follows: 27 In this context, I find that the consignee s door is the place of removal fore the goods cleared by them, M/s HZL is misinterpreting the place of removal to meet their end and other plce/ premises is not the consignees door to be treated as the place of removal. If the goods are being dispatched on FOR ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. CBI has vide circular No 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 clarified as follows: Attention is invited to Boards circular no. 97/8/2007-CX dated 23.08.2007, 988/12/2014-CX dated 20.10.2014 and 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015. Attention is also invited to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd 2015(319) ELT 221(SC), CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd 2015(324) ELT670 (SC), CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015(322) ELT 394(SC) and CCE ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd dated 1.2.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016. In this regard, references have been received from field formations seeking clarification on implementation of aforesaid circulars of the Board in view of judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer and not to the buyer of excisable goods. The depot or the premises of the consignment agent of the manufacturer are obviouslyplaces which are referable to the manufacturer. Even the expression any other place of premises refers only to a manufacturer s place or premises because such place or premises is to be stated to be where excisable goods are to be sold . These are key words of the sub-section. The place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold can only be manufacturer s premises or premises referable to the manufacturer. If we were to accept contention of the revenue, then these words will have to be substituted by the words have been sold which would then possibly have reference to buyer s premises. 4. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sport of goods from the place of removal to buyer s premises was not admissible for the relevant period. The Apex Court has observed that after amendment of in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004,effective from 01.03.2008, the service is treated as input service only up to the place of removal . 6. Facts to be verified : This circular only bring to the notice of the field the various judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court which may be referred for further guidance in individual cases based on facts and circumstances of each of the case. Past cases should accordingly be decided. 7. No extended period : Any new show cause notice issued on the basis of this circular should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
