TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re filing their returns with all particulars duly disclosed. 1.2 The jurisdictional Central Excise authorities sought to disallow the above credit with reference to GTA Outward Transportation Services and accordingly issued Show Cause Notices/Statements of Demand alleging that the appellants are not eligible to avail credit for GTA Outward Transportation Services after 01.04.2008 in the light of the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules ('CCR' for short), 2004. The appellants filed reply to each of the Show Cause Notices/Statements of Demand inter alia contending that there were agreements in place for the removal of goods up to the customer's place on FOR destination basis and that the ownership of the goods remained with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. M. Kannan, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee and Shri. B. Balamurugan, Ld. AR, appeared for the Revenue. 3.1 Ld. Advocate Shri. M. Kannan contended that the authorities below have seriously erred in not appreciating the facts in the proper perspective, especially the plea of the appellant that it was a case of delivery at the customer's place on 'FOR destination basis', which was not the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra). He further contended that the CBEC Board has subsequently issued a notification in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) which has also not been considered by the authorities below. 3.2 He drew ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d., held that the tax paid on the transportation of final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is the depot or the customer, has to be allowed and we find that the issue addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., pertains to the first limb of the definition under Rule 2(1) of the CCR. In other words, the issue involved in that decision was regarding availment of Cenvat credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises. In the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., the Cenvat credit on tax paid upto the customer's premises was disallowed, as it was found that the factory gate is to be determined as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examined is as to whether the assessee was right in contending that the goods are removed to the RDCs without any sale and therefore, there can be no removal at the factory gate and the retail outlet, at which, the goods were finally sold was the place of removal. 24. Thus, in our considered view, the issue requires to be examined in depth on the factual matrix and the Adjudicating Authority shall take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasavadatta Cements Ltd., and the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., and then take a decision as to whether the assessee's contention merits acceptance. Thus, for the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the matters requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard's Circular dated 08.06.2018. By following the precedence of this decision, I deem it fit to remand these cases also to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter along with the other cases keeping in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions and Board's Circular (supra). Further, the adjudicating authority shall ascertain with documentary evidences as to 5 whether the contract is FOR sale or not since there is a finding by FAA and then pass adjudication order as per law. Contentions of assessee as well as Revenue are left open. 5. Appeals are allowed by way of remand." 7. In view of the above binding precedents and the order of this Bench in the assessee's own case for a different period, it is for the Adjudicating A....