TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal Regional Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') in Appeal No.E/30419/2019 for the period October, 2015 to March, 2016. 2. According to the appellant, it is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement, falling under Chapter heading 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and it executes two types of sales i.e., (i) Ex-factory Sales and (ii) FOR sales. In the case of Ex-factory sales, transportation of the goods (cement) from the factory to the customer's premises has to be arranged by the customer and the said sales take place at the factory gate of the appellant company. Therefore, in this mode, freight charges are not borne by the appellant and the charges are paid by the customer. In case of FOR sales, appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses and held that the sale had taken place at factory gate. (iii) that the post-sale transport of the finished goods cannot be an input service for the manufacturer as the first clause i.e., clearance of final products up to the place of removal', and in particular the second clause i.e., 'service used for outward transportation up to the place of removal' restricts transport service credit only up to the 'place of removal'. The order further states that, on combined reading of Section 4(3) (c) of the Act and Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, it becomes clear that outward transportation incurred up to warehouse, depot and consignment agent from where the excisable goods are to be sold is an input service and service tax paid on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal is filed, questioning the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the CESTAT/Appellate Tribunal. 6. Heard Sri Raghavan Ramabhadran and Sri Anup Koushik.K, learned counsel representing M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise representing the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds of appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 before this Court, contends that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming the impugned demand, is highly arbitratory, erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the material available on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct Taxes and Customs). The said Circular, dated 08.6.2018, clarified the aspect of place of removal under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2017. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said Circular read as hereunder; 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not disclose any semblance of consideration of the said Circular, dated 08.6.2018. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said aspect of non-consideration of the impact of the Circular, dated 08.6.2018, is fatal to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration by the Appellate Tribunal after taking into account, the impact and effect of Circular bearing No.1065/4/2018-CD, dated 08.06.2018, having regard to the contents of the paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 of the said circular as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the final order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Ser....