Yamaha Motor wins CENVAT credit for depot services after proving direct sale points constitute place of removal

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal by India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. regarding denial of CENVAT credit for input services. The Tribunal held that direct sale points in Kolkata constitute the place of removal for goods manufactured at factory premises, not the factory itself. Following precedent from CESTAT Allahabad in identical circumstances involving the same appellant, the Tribunal ruled that since duty was paid on bikes sold from Kolkata shops, CENVAT credit for depot services must be allowed. The Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2016 was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant by the Commissioner
- Determination of the "place of removal" for excisable goods
- Interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of previous tribunal decisions

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant by the Commissioner, based on the determination of the "place of removal" for excisable goods. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor cycles and spare parts, availed CENVAT credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2016 rejected the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on input services for the period April 2010 to March 2015, arguing that the direct sale points in Kolkata cannot be considered as the place of removal for goods manufactured in the factory premises.

The Commissioner held that the appellant failed to establish that the direct shop at Kolkata could be considered the "place of removal" for the goods. It was emphasized that the place of removal could be the factory premises, warehouse, or depot, depending on the facts of the case. The appellant's contention that the direct shop at Kolkata constituted the place of removal was not substantiated with concrete evidence, such as certification of the premises as a registered place of removal or details of value addition during transportation.

In response, the appellant cited a decision by the Allahabad Regional Bench of the Tribunal, supporting their claim that the direct shop at Kolkata should be recognized as the place of removal. The Tribunal, in line with previous decisions and legal provisions, concluded that the direct shop at Kolkata indeed constituted the place of removal for the appellant's goods, rejecting the Commissioner's stance that the factory premises should be considered the place of removal.

The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly determining the place of removal for excisable goods to ascertain the value for payment of duty. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal and affirming that the direct shop at Kolkata should be recognized as the place of removal, thereby entitling the appellant to the CENVAT credit.

---