Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on sales made on FOR basis with inspection and acceptance at the buyer's premises, the buyer's premises constituted the place of removal so as to make outward GTA transportation an eligible input service for CENVAT credit.
Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allows credit for services used by a manufacturer up to the place of removal. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 makes the place of removal relevant to determine the limit of admissible input service credit, while Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act links transfer of property to the intention of the parties and the contractual terms. On the facts, the goods were supplied on FOR terms, the manufacturer bore transportation risk, and the buyer retained the right to inspect and reject the goods at its premises. The sale therefore stood completed only at the buyer's premises, and the buyer's premises, not the factory gate, constituted the place of removal. The contrary reliance on Ultra Tech Cement was held inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The buyer's premises were the place of removal, and the GTA service used for outward transportation up to that place was eligible for CENVAT credit, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are cleared on FOR basis and the contractual terms show that sale is completed only after inspection and acceptance at the buyer's premises, the buyer's premises become the place of removal and outward transportation up to that point qualifies as input service.