AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods / input services and utilized the same for payment of excise duty on clearances of the finished products. 2. On verification of the records relating to input service credit availed by the appellant, it was noted that the appellant has taken cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of GTA service used for the outward transportation of excisable goods beyond the place of removal (factory / depots) upto the buyer's premises for the period January 2015 to June 2017. The department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for cenvat credit on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer's premises as the buyer's premises cannot be considered as 'the place of removal'. Show cause Notice dated 17.07.2018 was issued to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cement, they had fixed price for certain period and also fixed price plus VAT rate for some period. The appellant has always included the freight charges in the price of the finished products for payment of excise duty. For this reason itself, the appellant is eligible for credit. The invoice, purchase order, agreement etc. were furnished by the appellant before the authorities to submit that freight has been included in the price for discharging excise duty and that buyer's premises is the place of removal. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Interim Order No.40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 was also adverted to by the learned consultant to submit that in the said case, the Tribunal has taken note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject using various items purchased for the period from November 2009 to April 2011. The department took the view that these items were assembled and embedded to earth making them immovable and therefore the appellant cannot avail credit as inputs / capital goods. The said SCN culminated in confirming the demand against which the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.40400/2019 dated 28.02.2019 set aside the demand allowing the credit in favour of the appellant. The said SCN dt. 27.11.2014 also was issued invoking the extended period. The Tribunal in the said case set aside the demand on the ground of limitation also. 2.4 It is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that on the very same issue of credit a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE Vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the credit is available only upto the place of removal. Later, the Board had issued a clarification vide Circular in the year 2018 explaining that if the price includes the freight charges and the agreement is to deliver the goods at the buyer's premises (FOR Destination), the credit of service tax paid on freight charges for transportation of goods would be eligible. 2.7 The issue was later referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal also. It was held by the Larger Bench that the place of removal has to be ascertained in each case and if the place of removal is the buyer's premises, then assessee would be eligible for credit. Thus, all these aspects would show that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of goods upto buyer's premises. 7. The said issue has been considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal vide Interim Order No.40020/2023 dt. 29.12.2023. The Larger Bench has held that in each case the place of removal has to be ascertained on the basis of documents and if the place of removal is the buyer's premises, the assessee would be eligible for credit. It is also held that the place of removal has to be ascertained by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emco Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Roofit Industries (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. (supra). The circular issued by the Board dt. 08.06.2018 also clarifies as....