TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or outward transportation of goods on Free on Road [FOR] destination basis from the factory gate or depot of the appellant to the premises of the customers under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR, 2004]. 2. The said issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided in several decisions. Following the said decisions by various forums, we have decided the issue in the case of the appellant itself by a recent order (Final Order No.58757/2024 dated 01.10.2024, allowing the appeal in their favour. 3. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015(319) ELT 221(SC)] laid down the test of determining the place of removal whether it is at the factory gate or at a later point of time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TL 545 (Raj.)] and Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. [2019(369) ELT 351 (Raj.)] - held that Credit would not be admissible on GTA service for delivery of goods at the buyers premises, however, on appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court as reported in 2020 (32) GSTL J-156 (SC). The Madhya Pradesh High Court also held similar view in M/s. Mahle Engine Components Vs. Union of India [2020(13) GSTL-OL-173 (MP)]. On the contrary, the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax [2022(66) GSTL 434 (Kar.)], considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cement and also the Circular No. 1065/4/2018 - CX dated 08.06.2018, allowed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or the depot of the appellant to the premises of the buyers since the sales are on FOR basis, M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE and CGST [2024(4) TMI 817 (CESTAT-New Delhi)] and M/s. Prism Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST [2024(6) TMI 612 CESTAT-New Delhi]. 8. What emerges from the legal principles referred to in the above decisions, the law is settled that in the case of "FOR destination" sales the place of removal is the buyers premises. We may now examine the facts of the present case as to whether the appellant is eligible to claim Cenvat credit. 9. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of excisable good i.e. 'cement & clinker' and have been availing the benefit of cenvat credit facility on service tax paid on freight incu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral excise duty is paid is inclusive of freight. The Appellant engages transporters for outward transportation of goods and paying freight charges to the transporters. The Appellant also bore the risk of loss/damage during transit till the goods reaches the doorstep of the customers. In this regard, the appellant also taken transit insurance policy. The appellant also paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism on payment made to transporters and availing credit of the same. 12. We also find from the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same issue came up before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in their own case as reported in 2009 (14) STR 3 (P&H). The High Court considered the issue in view of the provisio....