2025 (9) TMI 674 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant entitled to CENVAT credit on iron and steel inputs, erection goods and GTA outward transport services

The Ramco Cements Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Anna Nagar, Chennai

CESTAT CHENNAI - AT held that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on various iron and steel items and related inputs used to set up the cement ... Admissibility of CENVAT credit on various iron and steel items used to set up the Cement Grinding Plant - CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation of cement to their customers/dealers - HELD THAT:- A Larger Bench of this Tribunal in MANGLAM CEMENT LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [2018 (3) TMI 1547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - LB], while examining the issue whether goods which are installed for manufacture of the capital goods should also be considered for availment of CENVAT credit, held that 'On a conjoined reading of the definition of input and Explanation 2 appended thereto, it makes the position clear that inputs are not only goods, which are used in the manufacture of final products, but also those which are ‘used in or in relation to’ the manufacture of the final product. The relationship between those goods and the final product could be either direct or indirect and may include or may not include their presence in the final products. Goods used in the manufacture of capital goods, which are installed for manufacture of the capital goods should also be considered for availment of CENVAT credit. In the case in hand, the cement and steel bars used to erect foundations for installing different machines in the power plant should also merit consideration as ‘input’ for the purpose of CENVAT benefit.' The issue whether credit of various goods that are basically in the nature of capital goods was eligible or not as the goods after assembly and erection become fixed to earth which are immovable property and are not excisable came to be examined in the appellants’ own case M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (5) TMI 129 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that 'all those items which are brought into the factory and used for the manufacture of capital goods, which are further used for the manufacturing activity, would be eligible for Credit.' The issue of availing CENVAT credit on GTA services was examined in Bharat Fritz Warner Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 352 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the buyer’s premises to be the place of removal and allowed Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA services as eligible input credit. The appellant is eligible for the credit of service tax paid - the impugne dorder is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on various iron and steel items, cement and components used in erection, assembly and fabrication for setting up a cement grinding plant - i.e., whether such goods qualify as 'inputs' or 'capital goods' under the Cenvat Credit Rules when they lose individual identity after fabrication and become fixed to earth. 2. Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services for outward transportation of final product to customers/dealers where sales are on FOR/destination basis - i.e., whether the place of removal is the factory gate or the buyer's premises and whether outward transportation beyond the place of removal is an 'input service.' ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Admissibility of CENVAT credit on iron/steel items, cement and components used in erection of plant Legal framework: The definition of 'input' under the Cenvat Credit Rules includes goods 'used in or in relation to manufacture of final products' and, by Explanation 2, expressly includes goods used in manufacture of capital goods for further use in the factory of the manufacturer. The user test developed by higher Courts for determining whether articles constitute capital goods or inputs is applied to assess eligibility. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal's Larger Bench and various High Court decisions have examined whether goods that become fixed to earth after installation lose eligibility. Earlier findings that assembled/installed machinery becomes immovable and non-excisable were revisited in light of the user test and subsequent authorities which treated items used for foundations, structural supports and for manufacture/installation of capital goods as eligible. The Tribunal relied on precedents that extended benefit to steel and cement used to erect foundations and structures integral to plant/machinery. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied the user test and a combined reading of the definitions to conclude that goods used within the factory for manufacture of capital goods (even if they later form part of immovable structures) fall within 'input' or qualify as 'capital goods.' The analysis emphasizes that the statutory test focuses on usage 'in or in relation to' manufacture and whether the goods are used within the factory of production. Components, parts and small items that go into assembly, installation or commissioning of machines were found to be employed in relation to manufacture of final product or manufacture of capital goods, satisfying the definition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the eligibility of CENVAT credit is governed by the user test and the express inclusion in Explanation 2; goods used for fabrication, foundations or as integral parts of capital goods are eligible even if they later become attached to earth. Obiter - discussion of earlier conflicting authorities framed as explained but the dispositive principle is the statutory user-test interpretation. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that disallowance of credit on the disputed iron/steel items and cement was unjustified. Such items qualify as inputs or capital goods under the Rules and CENVAT credit is admissible. Relevant contrary views premised solely on subsequent immovability were held not determinative where the statutory user test and Explanation 2 are satisfied. Issue 2 - Admissibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation where sale is FOR/destination Legal framework: 'Input service' under the Rules includes services in relation to 'Outward Transportation' up to the 'place of removal.' The statutory concept of 'place of removal' under excise law identifies the premises from where excisable goods are sold after clearance from factory. Board circulars and Supreme Court and High Court rulings interpreting place of removal and scope of admissible credit on GTA services were considered. Precedent treatment: Conflicting judicial views exist on whether transportation beyond the factory gate is eligible as input service. Some authorities treated the factory gate as the place of removal, disallowing credit for transportation beyond it; others, where contractual terms and invoices show delivery at buyer's premises and price includes outward freight, have held buyer's premises to be the place of removal and allowed credit. The Tribunal followed the line of decisions treating buyer's premises as place of removal where the contract/invoice indicates delivery at destination. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined factual matrix (FOR/destination terms, contractual obligations, invoicing and transfer of title) to determine place of removal. Where the contract requires delivery at buyer's premises and sale concludes only upon delivery there, the place of removal is the buyer's premises; outward transportation to the buyer's premises therefore falls within 'Outward Transportation' up to the place of removal and qualifies as an input service. The Tribunal noted and considered the Board circular and Supreme Court authority cited by Revenue but concluded that factual determination of the place of removal controls and that the High Court authority favoring destination as place of removal is binding and applicable on facts like those before the Tribunal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - when sale is concluded at buyer's premises (FOR/destination), the place of removal is the buyer's premises; GTA services transporting goods to buyer's premises are input services eligible for CENVAT credit. Obiter - analysis of previous conflicting decisions and administrative circulars is explanatory; the operative rule is application of contractual and invoice terms to determine place of removal. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that where goods are sold on FOR/destination terms and title transfers only at the buyer's premises, outward transportation up to the buyer's premises is admissible as input service and CENVAT credit on GTA services is allowable. The appeals on both issues were allowed and the impugned order was set aside with consequential reliefs as per law.