2021 (4) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment and clinker. It was noticed by the Departmental officers that the appellant was availing cenvat credit of service tax paid on the outward transportation of goods from the factory/bulk terminal/depot to their customer's premises. It appeared that such availment of cenvat credit in relation to service tax paid on outward freight in relation to clearance of final product was wrong. Department entertained the view that as per Rule 2(a)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on outward transportation only up to the place of removal and in the present case, the appellant has availed cenvat credit up to the place of customer's place which he was not eligible. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 28/04....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....then referred to the definition of 'input service' as provided in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules as well as 'place of removal' as defined in Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and then submitted that mere reading of the definition makes it clear that where the goods are not sold at the factory gate but from some other place after their clearance from the factory, then the 'place of removal' would be such other place. It is his further submission that under the Central Excise Act, 1944 'sale' means transfer of possession of goods from one person to another for a consideration and if the same provision is applied to the 'place of removal', then it emerges that in case the possession of goods is transferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also submitted that on identical issue, this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bangalore reported in 2019 (11) TMI 1050-CESTAT Bangalore has remanded the matter back to the original authority to examine the case afresh in the light of the Board Circular dated 08/06/2018. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order mainly on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ultratech reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L 337 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that after the amendment in the definition of 'up to the place of removal' in the year 2008, the 'place of removal' will always be factory gate and the assessee is not entitled to cenvat credit on GTA up to the buyer's premis....