TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional buyers, the freight and transportation charges are borne by the appellant which is on FOR basis. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issuing of the various Show Cause Notices on the ground that the place of removal for the clearance of goods are only factory gate /depot and not beyond that, and hence the Cenvat Credit availed on GTS service is not admissible as it does not qualifies as input service, defined under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. In respect of Appeal No. E/50161/2018, this is the second round of litigation for period from January, 2005 to December 2011, and Appeal No. E/50421/2018, is a periodical demand on the same ground. The demands were confirmed after following the due process of law. 5. It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate that up to period March, 2008, the definition of input service contained the phrase "from the place of removal". The Cenvat credit availability "From place of removal" has been settled in their favour in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 17/1/2018 and 5/2/2018 in case of CCE vs. Vasavaddatta Cement Ltd., 2018(11) GSTL3 (SC) and in the case of CC, CE & ST, Guntur vs. The Andhra Sugar Ltd., 2018-T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e used for outward transportation upto the place of removal are to be treated as input service. The first clause does not mention transport service in particular. The second clause restricts transport service credit upto the place of removal. When these two clauses are read together, it becomes clear that transport service credit cannot go beyond transport upto the place of removal. The two clauses, the one dealing with general provision and other dealing with a specific item, are not to be read disjunctively so as to bring about conflict to defeat the laws‟ scheme. The purpose of interpretation is to find harmony and reconciliation among the various provisions". Similarly, in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd v. CCE Bhavnagar - 2007-TOIL-429-CESTAT-AHM = 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tribunal), it was held that after the final products are cleared from the place of removal, there will be no scope of subsequent use of service to be treated as input. The above observations and views explain the scope of the relevant provisions clearly, correctly and in accordance with the legal provisions. In conclusion, a manufacturer/consignor can take credit on the Service Tax paid on outward ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place." 11. As can be seen from the reading of the aforesaid portion of the circular, the issue was examined after keeping in mind judgments of CESTAT in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tribunal) and M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tri.- Ahd.). Those judgments, obviously, dealt with unamended Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004. The three conditions which were mentioned explaining the „place of removal‟ as defined under Section 4 of the Act, there is no quarrel upto this stage. However, the important aspect of the matter is that Cenvat Credit is permissible in respect of „input service‟ and the Circular relates to the unamended regime. Therefore, it cannot be applied after amendment in the definition of „input service‟ which brought about a total change. Now, the definition of „place of removal‟ and the conditions which are to be satisfied have to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) 18 May 2009 ABB Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23(Tri-LB) The Larger Bench held that transportation of final product must be considered in light of the requirement of the business. 15 June 2009 The Department accepted the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and decided not to file an SLP. 23 March 2011 CCE v. ABB Ltd., 2011(23) S.T.R.97(Kar.) The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the decision of the larger bench in ABB (supra). 6 April 2011 CCE v. Parth Poly Woven Pvt. Ltd. 2012(25) S.T.R 4(Guj) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that transportation of finished goods is inextricably linked with the manufactured process. 3 October 2012 Commissioner vs Grey Gold Cement Ltd., 2014(34) S.T.R. 809(A.P) The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed the order of the larger bench in ABB ltd. 18 November 2012 Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, 2014(35) S.T.R. 752(Tri-Del.) The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the Assessee would be entitled to credit if the sales were FOR destination sales. Further followed in 2015(37) S.T.R 364(Tri.) dated 03.09.2014 , Final Order No. 57887/2017 dated 09.11.2017, Final Order No. 58421/2017 dated 07.12.2017 28 November 2013 ....