2024 (10) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of cast articles of iron and aluminium, principally for use in motor vehicles falling under Chapter Headings 73 and 76 of the CETA, 1985. During the period from 2007 - 08 to 2010 - 11 (upto February 2011) they have availed CENVAT credit on various input services. It appeared to revenue that the services were not covered in the inclusive definition of input services and were ineligible in terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed recovery of an amount of Rs.22,11,324/- wrongly vailed as credit of service tax and cess on GTA, Mediclaim premium and fuel charges and dropped the other demands made in the Show Cause Notice dated 8.3.2012. Aggrieved by the portion of order con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - 2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC) and Roofit Industries - 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC). 3.2 As regards Mediclaim Insurance Service, he relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2022 (38) ELT 457 (Tri. LB) wherein credit has been allowed as input service. 3.3 He thus prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3.4 The learned Authorized Representative for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the dispute relates to the availment of credit on inputs namely GTA and on Mediclaim premium (personal insurance) during the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11 (upto Feb/2011). 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....term 'Input service' given under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was substituted vide Notification No. 3/2011-CE(NT) dated March 1, 2011, inter alia, deleting the phrase 'activities relating to business', thus, limiting the wide scope of the term 'Input services'. 6. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom) / 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.)], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, examined availing credit of service tax in the context of a manufacturing unit and had held: "38. In the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has considered scope of the expression "input service" as defined in Rule 2(1) of 2004 Rules. . . . . Considering the Finance Minis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re sold on FOR (buyer's premises) basis. The order held that the 'place of removal' whether at the factory premises or at the buyers premises has to be ascertained by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries. In other words the 'place of removal' cannot in all circumstance be held to be at the manufacturers premises and is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined as per the cited Supreme Court judgments. Boards Circular 1065/4/2018-CX, dated 08/06/2018 has recognised that the 'place of removal' is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale'. Further para 4(i) of the Circular states that FOR contracts where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till the goods are ac....