9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.35,67,071/- of service tax paid on GTA services which were utilized for movement of manufactured goods from the factory to the customer's premises for delivery of the goods at customer's place. It appeared to Revenue that the said cenvat credit is not admissible to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was issued with five show cause notices covering the above stated period for recovery of cenvat credit of Rs.35,67,071/-. All the above stated five show cause notices were adjudicated through a common order-in-original dated 28.09.2018. Before the original authority, the appellant in their reply to show cause notice stated that they were removing excisable goods and the contract was for FOR destination and the property of goods remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel has further submitted that after recording these grounds, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not dispute them through his impugned order-in-appeal. He has further submitted that, therefore, it is undisputed fact that the appellant was having custody and ownership of the goods after removal from the manufacturing premises till the goods were delivered at the place of customer and the appellant was transporting those goods and was paying charges towards transportation and service tax for the said transportation on GTA services. He has further submitted that the said issue as to whether cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services till the goods are delivered on FOR basis at the customer's premises was subject matter of Larger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amco Cements Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported at 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. reported at 2025 (324) ELT 670 (SC) and the Board circular dated 08.06.2018 (supra). Learned AR has submitted that the cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods beyond the place of removal is not admissible. 4. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. I note that it is undisputed fact that the appellant is under contract for delivery of the goods on FOR destination at the customer's premises and the goods remained in the ownership of the appellant till the goods reached customer's premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
