Tribunal allows Cenvat Credit for GTA services up to actual sales location.

The Tribunal held that Cenvat Credit for outward GTA used for removal of intermediate goods to job workers or own units was allowable as the place of removal was considered where goods were sold after leaving the factory, not the factory itself. The denial of credit based on the factory being the place of removal was overturned, allowing Cenvat Credit for GTA services up to the actual place of sale. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the place of removal under Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act is where goods are sold after clearance, which in this case was not the factory but the actual sales location, entitling the appellant to Cenvat Credit for GTA services.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit for outward GTA used for removal of intermediate goods.
2. Interpretation of place of removal under Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit for outward GTA used for removal of intermediate goods to job workers or their own units. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit, stating the goods were cleared on payment of duty, making the factory the place of removal. The appellant argued that sale occurs only after goods return and further manufacturing, not at the factory. The appellant contended that the denial of credit based on the place of removal was incorrect. The Revenue argued that once goods are cleared on duty payment, it constitutes a sale at the factory. The Tribunal noted that the definition of place of removal includes where goods are sold after clearance from the factory. As goods were sold after leaving the factory, the place of actual sale is considered the place of removal, allowing Cenvat Credit for GTA services up to that point.

2. The Tribunal analyzed Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, defining place of removal. It includes the factory or premises where goods are sold after clearance. The Tribunal clarified that if goods are sold from a location other than the factory, that location is the place of removal. In this case, goods were not sold at the factory but after being processed or transferred to another unit. Therefore, the place of actual sale, not the factory, is the place of removal. As the GTA services were used up to the place of removal, they qualified as input services eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal set aside the denial of credit and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law.

---