2016 (11) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise duty. They were also availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue in the present appeal is relating to denial of Cenvat credit availed of service tax paid on GTA services for transporting the final products from the factory of the appellant to the premises of (a) the appellant s depot (b) appellant s consignment agent and (c) appellant s customers. The period involved is April 2009 to March 2011 and the total credit denied is Rs. 99,21,728/-. The impugned order confirmed the demand only on the ground that the factory is considered as a place of removal and any outward transportation beyond the factory is not entitled for credit as per the definit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to business and it is not necessary to claim the credit under outward transportation from/up to the place of removal. The said decision was reversed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.). However, the eligibility of credit was justified on other grounds. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that there could be no bonafide belief in respect of place of removal and the eligibility of credit to the appellants. He supported the demand for extended period. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that impugned order held that the goods were sold at the factory gate and as such the credit on GTA services for outward transportation of finis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd transfer of property in goods should be in place other than factory gate. In such situation the freight up to the place of such removal/sale is eligible. The same has been clarified in Board Circular dated 20/10/2014. We further note that the amendment carried out w.e.f. 01/4/2008 has no impact to decide the present appeal. In the said amendment in the definition of input service, the words from the place of removal were replaced by up to the place of removal . The place of removal as defined under Section 4 of the Act includes a depot, premises of consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory from where such goods are removed. In the present case, the a....