TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 10.08.2018 V(79)ADJ-II/JPR-II/380/ 2013/ 5010 January 2013 to June, 2013 11,45,853/- (marine insurance) 2. APPL/JDR/CE/CH/ 644/X/ 18 19/CEx/UDR/ 2018-19/DC dated 10.08.2018 V(79) 04- 82/2015/ 4523 dated 12.08.2015 January 2015 to June, 2015 4,13,258/- (marine insurance) 3. APPL/JDR/CE/CH/ 683/XI/18 (along with condonation of delay) 20/CEx/UDR/ 2018-19/DC dated 10.08.2018 GL-3/LAR/ Zinc/ 26/COR-II/2007 dated 04.07.2017 July 2015 to June 2016 7,30,203/- (6,99,548+41682) =7,41,230/- (marine insurance + cash in safe/transit insurance) 2. Relevant facts for the purpose are that appellants are engaged in manufacture of lead and zinc and are registered with the Central Excise Department. It was alleged in the aforesaid show cause notices that the appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax as mentioned in the above table, on insurance services provided by the insurance companies despite that those services are not covered under the definition of input services. The demand was initially confirmed vide the aforementioned orders in original. The appeals thereof have been dismissed vide common-Order-in-Appeal under challenge. Being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der under challenge to be set aside and appeals to be allowed. 8. While rebutting these arguments, learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the definition of input services expressly excludes the insurance services. Also after the amendment in the definition of input services the availability of credit is restricted upto the place of removal. This amendment is in force since 1st April, 2008. Learned Authorised Representative has placed reliance upon sub-para 11 and 12 in para 8 of the order under challenge as a sufficient explanation to deny the Cenvat Credit to the appellant. Impressing upon that the order under challenge is reasonable and justified that the appeals in hand are prayed to be dismissed. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the Court record, I am of the opinion as follows:- 10. The moot question to have been decided in the impugned appeals is:- Whether Cenvat Credit on marine insurance services received by the appellant during the period of impugned demand is admissible in terms of Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not. Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules defines input service as follows:- Rule 2(l) "input service means any s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nition it becomes clear that all services received by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products upto the place of removal are admissible for availment of Cenvat Credit on the Service Tax paid for such services. Accordingly, the definition of place of removal acquires importance. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines the same as follows:- "Place of removal means (i) A factory of any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) A warehouse or any other place of premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be stored without payment of duty; (iii) A depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; From where such goods are removed." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. & others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi, II (2003) 1 SCC 281 has held that the place of removal has to be determined with reference to the point of 'sale'. Section 19 of Sale of Goods Act says that the "property in goods st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OR delivery system was taken. These admitted facts are sufficient to hold that the sale in the present case gets complete only at the door steps of buyers. It becomes clear that when the goods are cleared on FOR basis the freight paid on outward transportation would definitely qualify as input service, and thus shall be admissible for Cenvat. 15. Above all, there is a Circular No. 1065/4/2018 dated 8th June, 2018 which clarifies as under:- General Principle: As regards determination of 'place of removal', in general the principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs Ispat 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 Count in para 16 in this regard is significant as reproduced below: 16. It will thus be seen where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is differe....