TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 68 and 87 of CETA. During verification of CENVAT credit accounts of the appellant, it was noticed that they had taken input service credit on Goods Transport Agency services utilized for outward transportation of goods from their factory to their customer's premises during the period February 2016 to March 2017. It appeared that the GTA outward service was not an eligible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, since the place of removal was considered as the factory gate. Therefore, the appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice proposing to recover CENVAT credit of an amount of Rs.7,28,423/-. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand, consequent to which the department filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted that the lower adjudicating authority has traversed beyond the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT and passed an order following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE and ST Vs Ultra Tech Cements [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)] instead of the decision of the Apex court in the case Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex, Aurangabad Vs M/s Roofit Industries [2015 (4) TMI 857 SUPREME COURT) / 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)], in terms of the Final Order No 40791-0795/2019 dated 13.05.2019 of this Hon'ble Tribunal. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further the Larger Bench of this Tribunal vide Interim Order No. 40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 [2023 (12) TMI 1332 CESTAT CHENNAI-LB) examined the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lower Authority examine the matter in the light of the Apex Courts judgment in M/s Roofit Industries (supra), it would not bar the Lower Authority from examining other Supreme Court judgments that are relevant to the issue, since the judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on lower authorities and more so when the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cements has been rendered after its decision in M/s Roofit Industries. Further in the case of Ultra Tech Cement [2018-TIOL-42-SCC-CX] it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no CENVAT credit is admissible for transport of goods by the assessee to the buyers premises when the sale was on FOR destination basis, hence this issue is no longer res integra and the appeal may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases. (ii) Clearance for export of goods by a manufacturer shall continue to be dealt in terms of Circular no. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 as the judgments cited above did not deal with issue of export of goods. In these cases otherwise also the buyer is located outside India. 6. I find that a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of The Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 -CESTAT Chennai LB], has had an occasion to examine whether CENVAT credit on GTA services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h delivery at their destination point. Hence, the sale takes place at the destination point of the buyers only at the place of delivery / buyer's premises. In such a situation, the ownership of the goods rests with M/s. RBL till delivery of the goods to the buyer's at their premises. Therefore, M/s. RBL continue to be the owner of the goods and are responsible for all activities until the goods are delivered to the buyers at their premises. 39. In the case of freight, the invoices clearly indicate that the freight component has been incurred by M/s. RBL and the same has formed part of transaction value on which duty liability has been discharged. Invoice value is inclusive of freight charges. It is seen that the price of goods supplied to....