AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put Tax Credit of Service Tax paid on transportation of excisable goods from its Chennai Unit I to Jamshedpur Unit 2 of the Assessee itself. 2. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, v. Ultra Tech Cement Limited ((2018) 2 SCC 721). The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions of CESTAT also in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III (2016(42) STR 155) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (52) STR 350 (Tri. Del.)) in para 7 and 8 of its order respectively, but, the Tribunal disallowed the claim of the Assessee, following the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultra Tech ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement is distinguishable on facts as the controversy involved in the case before the Supreme Court was one pertaining to the transport of goods from the place of removal of Assessee seller to buyer's premises, which is an outward transport service ending at the terminal point of consignment and obviously that could not be included in view of the definition of 'Input Service' after its amendment which substituted the words 'from the place of removal' by 'upto the place of removal'. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the Appeals filed by the Assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar appearing for the Respondent/Revenue urged th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Bar. 7. We are of the clear opinion that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited supports the case of the Assessee rather than that of the Revenue. A closer and finer reading of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would clearly reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned only with the controversy of Cenvat Credit on goods transported from the place of removal to the buyers' premises and not the transport of goods from one Unit of the Assessee to another Unit of the same Assessee. In the context of the factual background, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the amended definition of the place of removal wherein the word 'upto' has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) of Rule 2(qa). We are not persuaded to take an unnecessarily narrow or restricted view of the said definition, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 9. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech indirectly supports the view which we have taken above, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Cenvat on goods transport agency availed for transport of goods from the place of removal of Assessee to the buyer's premises was not admissible to the respondent and that by necessary implication would mean that Input Services for transport of goods upto the final place of removal of goods by way of sale to the buyers would be so included. The definition of place of removal and para 11 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to' the place of removal. It is this amendment which has made the entire difference. That aspect is not dealt with in the said Board's circular, nor it could be. 12. Secondly, if such a circular is made applicable even in respect of post amendment cases, it would be violative of Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and such a situation cannot be countenanced. 13. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises was not admissible to the respondent. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Order-in-Original dated August 22, 2011 of the Assessing Officer is res....