2022 (7) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in denying the cenvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of GTA services received for clearance of goods "upto the place of removal" as envisaged in Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period in dispute?" 2. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard Shri. K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Smt. K.R. Vanitha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Facts in CEA 56/2019 4. Appellant is a Public Limited Company manufacturing CNC Machines. As per the purchase orders, it has sold and delivered the final product at buyers premises. It availed CENVAT (Central Value Added ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... transporting final product to customer's place. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant as to why the credit availed should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules; and interest and penalty should not be imposed. Appellant contested the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority passed the Order in Original C.No. V/84/15/82/2015/Adjn.BII dated 29.02.2016 confirming the demand of Rs.20,48,961/-, interest of Rs.20,48,961/- and penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. In appeal, A No.83/2016 B-II, vide order dated 19.12.2017, the Appellate Authority allowed the credit of Rs.7,245/- and confirmed the remaining demand of Rs.20,41,716/- and penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 8. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nkar submitted that the goods manufactured by the appellants have been delivered at purchaser's site. Therefore, appellants are entitled for the CENVAT Credit on GTA services. 11. Smt. Vanitha, argued opposing the appeal. 12. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. The CESTAT, in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. C.C., C.E.& S.T-Commissioner of Central Tax CEA 56/2019, has recorded in paragraph No.5 that as per the purchase orders, appellant was required to supply the goods at the buyer's premises and the price of goods would include 'outward freight'. Similarly, in the case of MAPAL India Pvt. Ltd. CEA 71/2019, the CESTAT has recorded a similar finding. 14. It is clear that as per Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2008 which has been denied to it by the authorities below. 13. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal stands allowed. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of disallowing Cenvat credit to the appellant for the period after 31-3-2008 is quashed." 17. The Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi, has issued Circular dated 08.06.2018 and clarified the definition, 'Place of Removal'. In para 5 of the Circular, the Ministry has referred to the judgment in the case of CCE & ST Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Civil Appeal No.11261 of 2016 dated 01.02.2018 and stated that, in that case, the A....