TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For Appellant: M. Karthikeyan Adv., Raghavan Ramabhadran Adv., R. Parthasarathy Cons. For Respondents: K. Veerabhadra Reddy ADC (AR), B. Balamurugan AC (AR), L. Nanda Kumar AC (AR) ORDER Per Bench: The above appeals have come up for hearing as per the published list. The issue involved in all these appeals being the same they are heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. The grievance of appellants is that the authorities below have denied the Cenvat credit on Outward Transportation of Goods (GTA Services) upto the buyer's premises. The facts being similar and related to the above issue are not being narrated in particular. 3. The learned counsels S/Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ragha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cements Ltd (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the credit would be eligible upto the place of removal only. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the department has to first consider which is the place of removal for the assesse as per the decision laid down in M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra) and then consider the eligibility of credit on Outward Transportation of Goods services. In all these appeals, the goods were to be delivered at the buyer's premises and, therefore, the place of removal would be the buyer's premises. The appellants have paid freight upto the buyer's premises and, therefore, the credit of such Outward Transportation of Goods would be eligible to them. They requested for a reconsid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra). The relevant portion of Circular dt.8/6/2018 is extracted below :- 3. General Principle: As regards determination of 'place of removal', in general the principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vsIspat Industries Ltd 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC) may be applied. Apex Court, in this case has upheld the principle laid down in M/s. Escorts JCB (Supra)to the extent that 'place of removal' is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale' with the condition that place of removal (premises) is to be referred with reference to the premises of the manufacturer. The observation of Hon'ble Court in para 16 in this regard is significant as reproduced below :- "16. It will thus be seen where the price at which goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Roofit Industries Ltd 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC). To summarise, in the case of FOR destination sale such as M/s.Emco Ltd and M/s.Roofit Industries where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases. (ii) Clearance for export of goods by a manufacturer shall continue to be dealt in terms of Circular no.999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 as the judgments cited above did not deal with issue of export of goods. In these cases otherwise also the buyer is located outside India." (emphasis supplied) 7. Para 5 refers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessable value for the purpose of valuation of the goods. On the other hand, the issue that was addressed in Ultra Tech Cements (supra) concerned the eligibility for availing Cenvat credit incurred on transport services from the place of removal to the buyer's premises. This being so, the Roofit judgment basically concerns itself with includibility of certain costs incurred the delivery of the goods at the buyer's point, whereas, on the other hand Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., (supra) is confined to eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of transportation undertaken by the seller/manufacturer till the buyer's premises. 9. In the last para of the Ultra Tech judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of the changes in the amendment brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that after issuance of the Circular dated 8/6/2018, the Tribunal has decided several cases by remanding the matter to look into the question as to which is the place of removal for the assesse. Few of the cases are listed below:- (i) CCE v. M/s. Kirloskar Engines India Ltd [2018 (10) TMI 1642 CESTAT-Ahmedabad] (ii) M/s. Balaji Multiflex (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2018 (10) TMI 530 (CESTAT-Ahmedabad)] (iii) CCE v. M/s. A. K. Automatics [Final Order no.63477-63481/2018 dated 20.11.2018] 12. Indeed, one of us sitting in Single Member Bench had upheld the disallowance of credit relying upon the decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., (supra). However, since these are heard by us together in Division Bench, and we are in unanimity that....