2024 (10) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant Shri Unmesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER BINU TAMTA: 1. The issue decided by the impugned order Order-in-Original No.RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/CEX/19/2022-2023 dated 19.10.2022 relates to admissibility of credit of service tax paid on "Goods Transport Agency Service" GTA availed by the appellant for outward transportation o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ovisions of Rule 2 l and Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2004 read with Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act CEA. On adjudication, the entire cenvat credit was disallowed and the same has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue both agree that the issue raised in the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Karnataka Hihg Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the GTA service upto the place of removal." 4. Here, the Revenue has not disputed that the cement is sold on FOR basis as per the allegations made in the show cause notice. Once the sale is on FOR destination basis, the ownership in the goods gets tran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X