AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as below:- Sl. No. Details THE RAMCO CEMENTS Ltd. Alathiyur 1 Appeal Nos. E/40346 / 2021 E/40347/2021 2 Period of Dispute Dec.2016 to Jun. 2017 May 2016 to Nov. 2016 3 Amount disallowed Rs.38,43,606/- Rs.45,95,157/- 2.2 The appellants are the manufacturers of cement and have availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services where the cement was sold on FOR destination basis. The Appellants were of the view that as the place of delivery is at the dealer's premises, they are eligible for the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA Services which they paid under reverse charge mechanism. 2.3 This availment of CENVAT credit on outward GTA was objected to by the Jurisdictional Departmental Officers, resulting in issuance of SOD No. 06/2018 dated 07.06.2018 and SOD No. 07/2018 dated 18.06.2018 in order to recover the wrong CENVAT credit availed on the outward GTA Services. After due process of the law, the SODs were adjudicated and the entire credit availed i.e, Rs.45,95,157/- and Rs.38,43,060/- respectively was disallowed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original Nos. 27&28/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s where goods were sold on FOR basis was not their factory gate or depot but the place of removal in their case, was that of the customers' places where the cement sold was delivered. He has referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Limited [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)], wherein it was held that the GTA credit would not be eligible beyond the factory gate but the main issue as to what would be the place of removal in the case of goods sold on FOR destination basis was not discussed therein. It was argued further that in their case all cement bags and bulk cement were sold on FOR basis and so, the property in the goods got transferred only after the cement bags in good condition were delivered to their customers and as such the place of removal was only that of their customers' premises. 3.3 He has put forth that they have satisfied the guidelines prescribed in the Board's Master Circular No. 97/6/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. It was further submitted that in pursuant to the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited supra, CBI&C by their Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018, clari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Credit Rules, 2004. 39. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. " 3.5 The appellants also rely upon Hon'ble Division Bench's final order 40201/2024 dated 22.2.2024 wherein on similar set of facts, it was held that CENVAT credit availed on outward transportation services is eligible when the freight charges are included in the taxable value. The appellants have submitted that the division Bench made the following observations: - "6. Recently, the Larger Bench, in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs CCE, Puducherry (Appeal No: E/40575/2018 dated 21.12.2023) had held that the credit availed on outward transportation services is eligible when the freight charges are included in the taxable value. We therefore, find that the disallowance on Input Service and the confirmation of the demand without basis are required to be set aside." 3.6 The appellants has also submitted that the identical issue relating to the other plants located in Tamil Nadu, came up before Hon'ble Division Bench, Chennai and vide Final Orders cited hereunder, the issue was remanded to the original authorities for re determination of place of removal in the cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Bench for hearing." 8. From the appeal records, it is evident that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Limited [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that credit of service tax paid for outward transportation of goods is not eligible. The Board vide Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 had issued a clarification wherein it was stated that the place of removal has to be determined as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.)] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. [2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC)]. If the buyer's premises is the place of removal, the appellant would be eligible for credit. The very same issue was referred to the Larger Bench and as per the decision of the Larger Bench vide Interim Order No. 40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023, it was held that in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the Department has to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Centra....