TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpreting 'Place of Removal' for Cenvat Credit: Tribunal Ruling Clarifies Input Services Eligibility</h1> <h3>AARTI STEEL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA</h3> AARTI STEEL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 494 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Eligibility of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on GTA Service for outward transportation of finished goods.- Interpretation of 'place of removal' in the context of Cenvat credit rules.- Applicability of Board's Circular on FOR destination basis sales.- Comparison of judgments by different High Courts on Cenvat credit eligibility.Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on GTA Service for outward transportation of finished goods:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel products, claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods to customer premises. The Department disputed this claim, arguing that GTA service for such transportation does not qualify as an 'input service' under Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit, emphasizing that transportation arranged by the manufacturer on customer's request does not make customer premises the 'place of removal.' The appellant contended that their sales were on FOR destination basis, making customer premises the 'place of removal,' citing relevant High Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that if sales are on FOR destination basis, transportation up to customer premises qualifies as an 'input service' eligible for Cenvat credit.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'place of removal' in the context of Cenvat credit rules:The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'place of removal' under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that if sales occur at customer premises on FOR destination basis, it constitutes the 'place of removal.' The Board's Circular specified criteria for FOR destination sales, including ownership retention by manufacturer-seller during transit, risk of loss on manufacturer-seller, and integral transport charges in goods value. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, which allowed Cenvat credit for service tax on outward transportation up to buyer's premises for FOR destination sales meeting Circular criteria.Issue 3: Applicability of Board's Circular on FOR destination basis sales:The Tribunal discussed the importance of adhering to the Board's Circular for treating sales as FOR destination basis. Relying on the Circular's criteria, the Tribunal reiterated that if sales meet the specified conditions, customer premises become the 'place of removal,' allowing Cenvat credit for service tax on transportation up to that point. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of satisfying Circular requirements for eligibility of Cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation.Issue 4: Comparison of judgments by different High Courts on Cenvat credit eligibility:The Tribunal compared judgments by various High Courts on Cenvat credit eligibility for outward transportation services. While the Larger Bench's decision considered such services as 'input services,' the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's judgment restricted the definition of 'input service' to exclude outward transportation. The Tribunal aligned with the latter's interpretation, emphasizing that Cenvat credit eligibility hinges on sales being FOR destination basis and duty paid at ad valorem rate. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, directing a fresh decision considering the criteria outlined in the Circular and relevant High Court judgments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
