TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal products to their customers. The total Cenvat credit so availed during period from April 2006 to December 2008 is Rs. 2 ,61,07,159 /-. The department was of the view that the courier service availed for dispatch of the goods to their customers being in the nature of outward freight from the place of removal is not covered by the definition of 'input service' as given in Rule 2 (I) of CCR, 2004. It is on this basis that a show cause notice dated 19/2/09 was issued to the appellant for demand of allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,61,07,159/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest on it at the applicable rate under Section 11AB ibid and imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 11/3/2010 by which the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 2,61,07,159/- was confirmed alongwith interest and beside this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Departmental Representative, opposing the stay application pleaded that the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore (supra) cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has been stayed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, that the Tribunal in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Trichy reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 530 (Tri. - Chennai) has held that during the period prior to 1st March 2008, GTA service availed for outward transportation of the finished goods from the place of removal to the customer's premises was not covered by the definition of 'input service' and was not eligible for Cenvat credit, that in this judgment the Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore (supra), that the judgment in case of Universal Cables Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of Single Bench and, hence, the same is not binding, that the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhavnagar (supra) cited by the Senior Counsel for the appellant is in respect of stay application and moreover, in that case the fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....main definition, the words "and clearance of final product from the place of removal were deleted". According to the appellant, in respect of period from 1/3/08 to December 2008, they have already reversed Cenvat credit of Rs. 88,11,749/- and reported to the department vide letter dated 19/1/09 and beside this, they have also paid an interest of Rs. 5,41,563/- in respect of the same and as such, the dispute is only in respect of the balance amount of Rs.1,72,95,410/-pertaining to the period prior to 1/3/08. The main plea of the appellant is that during the period prior to 1/3/08, as per the definition of the term 'input service' as given in Rule 2 (1) of CCR, 2004, this term also included "the services used for clearance of final product from the place of removal". According to the appellant since the courier services were used for clearance of final products from the place of removal, the same would be covered by the definition of 'input service' and hence same would be eligible for Cenvat credit and in this regard they rely upon the judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore (supra). In the case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore Lar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions are satisfied or in other words the assessable value of the goods on which duty is paid is the FOR destination price, the Cenvat credit of the service tax on freight upto the customer's premises would be admissible. Based on this Circular of the Board, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Ambuja Cements Limited reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P & H) has held that the service of outward transportation of finished goods from the factory/depot to the customer's premises can be treated as input service if the above-mentioned conditions of the Board Circular dated 23/8/07 are satisfied. 6. Thus, unlike the judgment of Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in respect of Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's judgment, the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court links the availability of Cenvat credit in respect of GTA service for outward transport of the finished goods to the customer's premises, to the Transaction being on FOR destination basis or in other words the customer's premises being the 'place of removal' and the assessable value of the goods o....