TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1944. In terms of Section 4A, the Excise Duty is paid based on the MRP (Retail Sale Price) of the cement bags. The Appellant cleared their cement to the dealers and distributors wherein the freight charges are borne by the Appellant till the delivery of the goods to the premises of the buyers. They have taken the Cenvat Credit for the Service Tax paid on such outward freight charges during the period September 2015 to November 2015. 2. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice on the ground that in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat Credit can be taken for the input services used only for "upto the place of removal". Taking the view that the "place of removal" is the factory premises of the Appellant, and the Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r No. A/10374- 10375/2019 dated 25.02.2019. He submits that the facts are similar and the issue in that case was that the Cenvat Credit was taken on the Service Tax paid on the outward freight charges paid by the cement manufacturer when the goods are cleared to their distributors/dealers. In that case, the freight was being borne by the Appellant only. In that case, the Bench after going through the Chartered Accountant's Certificate certifying that the goods were being sold with the Appellant bearing the freight cost and the goods are cleared on FOR basis for delivery at the buyer's premises, the Appeal was allowed. Similarly in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham), vide Final Order No. A/10373/2019 dated 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the Appellants have canvassed the following two points:- (i) The freight is borne by the Appellant and the Appellant is responsible to deliver the goods upto the doorsteps of the buyer. Therefore, the Appellant contends that the „place of removal‟ is that of the buyer of the cement. (ii) As on alternate pleading, they have submitted that the freight charges have not been separately collected by the Appellant from the buyer. Therefore this forms part of the total cost to the company. As the goods are to be assessed in terms of section 4A Valuation, the Excise Duty has been paid even on the freight charges borne by the Appellant. Therefore, even on this count, the Appellant should be eligible to take the Cenvat Credit. 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on FOR basis the freight paid on outward transportation would qualify as "Input Service". As regard reliance placed upon by the revenue on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ultratech supra, we find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was concerned only with the "place of removal" but did not go into the aspect of "Point of sale" or the FOR price destination issue. Hence the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 7. As regard the issue raised by the appellant that the excise duty paid on the element of freight being more than the element of cenvat credit on the outward GTA, therefore, there should not be any demand. We find force in the argument of the appellant however, since we are deciding the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace of removal". The "Place of removal" is not defined under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but the same is defined under Section 4 of the Central Excise, Act, 1944 which reads as under:- SECTION 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the go....