2017 (6) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms input service credit on transportation costs, citing contractual terms and judicial precedents.

CCE, Chandigarh Versus Techno Engineering Company

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, affirming the admissibility of input service credit on outward transportation. It found that the ... Input service credit - admissibility - credit on outward transportation to the destination of the buyers - denial on the ground that transportation and clearance are entirely separate activities and post sale transport of manufactured goods cannot be considered as input for manufacture - Held that: - these were on FOR destination basis. The transit insurance covers taken by the respondent for these contracts were upto the respective destination. The FOR destination price is inclusive of excise duty, insurance and freight charges - reliance placed in the decision in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI [2009 (2) TMI 50 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that since sales is based on basis of “FOR destination”, transit insurance and freight charges are borne by appellant, so credit is admissible on outward freight - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding admissibility of input service credit on outward transportation.Analysis:1. Issue of Dispute Period (May 2007 - February 2008): The appeal concerns the period from May 2007 to February 2008. The Revenue contests the admissibility of input service credit on outward transportation, arguing that transportation and clearance are distinct activities, and post-sale transport of goods should not be considered an input for manufacturing.2. Ownership and FOR Basis: The Revenue asserts that the FOR basis does not entail ownership transfer to buyers at their doorstep. Reference is made to a Tribunal judgment, Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE Ludhiana-2007, to support this argument.3. Contractual Clauses and Transit Insurance: The respondent submits relevant contracts and transit insurance documents, highlighting clauses indicating that FOR destination prices include excise duty, CST, freight, insurance charges, and unloading at the consignee's store. The advocate cites a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI-2009 to support their position.4. Analysis of Contracts and Insurance Covers: The Tribunal examines the contracts and insurance covers, noting that they were on FOR destination basis and that the transit insurance covers were up to the respective destinations. The FOR destination price includes various charges, fulfilling conditions outlined in a Board Circular. The Tribunal agrees with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI, supporting the admissibility of credit for outward transportation as an input service.5. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal contrasts the Revenue's reliance on the Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. case, which was overturned by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI. Given the binding nature of the latter judgment, the Tribunal upholds the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirms the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the admissibility of input service credit on outward transportation based on contractual terms and relevant judicial precedents, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.