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>Cement Company Wins CENVAT Credit Appeal, Validates Tax Credit Claim Under Service Taxation Rules</h1> <h3>Ultra Tech Cement Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Bhiwandi</h3> CESTAT Mumbai allowed an appeal by a cement company regarding CENVAT credit for Goods Transport Agency services. Relying on a Larger Bench decision in ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, relating to tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for December 2015 to June 2017 - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in re Ramco Cements Ltd and the same having been followed in their own dispute in M/S. ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX AUDIT COMMISSIONERATE, BHUBANESWAR AND M/S. ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, G.S.T. AND C.X., ROURKELA [2025 (3) TMI 259 - CESTAT KOLKATA] the issue stand resolved. There is no ground to sustain the impugned order - the impugned order is set aside to allow the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Mumbai) allowed the appeal of M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd against the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 15,46,386 under rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, relating to tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for December 2015 to June 2017. The first appellate authority had denied credit relying on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 117 (SC)] and CBIC Circular no. 1065/4/2018-Cx dated 8th June 2018.The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in Ramco Cements Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 - CESTAT CHENNAI-LB], which clarified that the 'place of removal' must be ascertained by applying Supreme Court judgments in Emco Ltd and Roofit Industries, the Karnataka High Court decision in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the CBIC Circular. The Larger Bench held that for clearances against FOR contract basis, the admissibility of CENVAT credit on GTA service depends on the place of removal being the buyer's premises.Following this binding precedent, and the subsequent CESTAT Kolkata decision in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd v. Commissioner [2025 (3) TMI 259], the Tribunal found no ground to sustain the impugned order denying credit and accordingly set it aside, allowing the appeal. The key legal reasoning hinged on proper application of Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence to determine the place of removal and thereby the entitlement to credit on GTA services.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
