TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dt.18.06.2012 on the ground that the CENVAT credit of the same was not admissible to the discussed supra out of total refund claim of Rs. 17,97,182/- filed by the party. I hereby sanction an amount of Rs. 5,90,999/- (Rs. Five Lakh Ninety Thousand Nine hundred and ninety nine only) as refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-C.E. (NT) dt.18.06.2012 and under Section 142(3) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. I hereby allowed an amount of Rs. 6,99,176/- (Rs. Six Lakh Ninety nine Thousand One hundred and Seventy six only) in cash to the party under the provisions of Notification No 27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18.06.2012 read with Section 142(3) of Central Goods & Service Tex Act 2017 as discussed supra. Accordingly, an amount Rs. 12,90,175/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh Ninety Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five only) is being credited directly to your bank account through RTGS/NEFT as per authorization in Annexure "A" in terms of Trade Notice No.01/ST/N/2016 dated 27.01.2016 as per the schedule." 2.1 The Appellant having Central Excise Registration filed refund claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been finally settled, with respect to all its facets, with the pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE&ST Vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018(9)GSTL337(SC)] and CCE, Belgaum Vs Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. [2018(11)GSTL3(SC)]. Thus, it becomes imperative to cite the pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said two cases:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018(9)GSTL337(SC)] {Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the review petition by M/s Ultra Tech cement [2018 (13) GSTL J101 (Supreme Court)]} Held: CENVAT credit - Input service - Goods Transport Agency service - Used for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer's premises - Assessee was not entitled to credit In definition of input service in Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 'from place of removal' has been replaced in 2008 by 'up-to place of removal' - 'From' was the indicator of starting point, and 'up-to' signifies terminating point. [Relevant excerpts from the judgment:- 5. 'Input service' is defined in Rule 2(l) of the Rules, 2004 which reads as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at that place. This credit cannot travel therefrom. It becomes clear from the bare reading of this amended Rule, which applies to the period in question that the Goods Transport Agency service used for the purpose of outward transportation of goods, i.e. from the factory to customer's premises, is not covered within the ambit of Rule 2(l)(i) of Rules, 2004. Whereas the word 'from' is the indicator of starting point, the expression 'up-to' signifies the terminating point, putting an end to the transport journey. We, therefore, find that the Adjudicating Authority was right in interpreting Rule 2(l) in the following manner : "... The input service has been defined to mean any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly and also includes, interalia, services used in relation to inward transportation of inputs or export goods and outward transportation up-to the place of removal. The two clauses in the definition of 'input services' take care to circumscribe input credit by stating that service used in relation to the clearance from the place of removal and service used for outward transportation up-to the place of removal are to be treated as input servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain the scope of relevant provisions clearly, correctly and in accordance with the legal provisions." (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. [2018(11)GSTL3(SC) Held: CENVAT credit - Input services - GTA services - Outward Transportation of manufactured product - Place of removal - Definition of input services as it existed prior to amendment in 2008, included term "from place of removal" - Certainly it has to be up-to a certain point - Thus GTA services used for outward transportation of goods from place of removal, i.e., factory gate up to first point of delivery viz. a Depot or a Customer's premises covered under input services - However, post 1-4-2008 amendment, said term having been substituted by term "up-to the place of removal", credit beyond such place not admissible. [Relevant excerpts from the judgment:- 2. The entire issue hinges upon the interpretation that has to be given to input service which is defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It may be stated at this stage itself that all these appeals relate to a period prior to 1-4-2008. The aforesaid Rule was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2008 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st part of the definition as to what input service means, the Full Bench of the CESTAT held that all input services which are used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal are concerned, they are treated as input services and Cenvat credit in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to such services would be admissible. The expression with which the CESTAT was concerned, and which was the subject matter of discussion, was as to what would be the meaning of "from the place of removal". Obviously, any input service given for clearance of the final products "from the place of removal" and tax paid thereon the Cenvat credit has to be given. The question is from the place of removal up to what place. The assessees had claimed the tax paid on the transportation of final products from the place of removal (i.e. the place of manufacture) to either the place to their respective depots or transport up-to the place of the customers, if from the place of removal the goods were directly delivered at customers place. It is made clear that only first set of transportation fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible by the adjudicating authority. As regarding the pronouncements relied upon by the appellant in their support, I find that the pronouncements in the case of CCE & Cus. Vs. Parth Poly Woven Pvt. Ltd. [2012(25)STR4(Guj)] and Commr. of Cus. & ST, Bangalore Vs. Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (309 )ELT 734 (Tri-Bang)] had been made prior to the cited pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE&ST Vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)] and CCE, Belgaum Vs Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. [2018 (11) GSTL3 (SC)]. Further, in the case of CCE VS. ADF Foods Ltd. [2021(45) GSTL265 (Guj.)] reliance had been made upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 4 (Guj.)] and the same corresponds to the unamended definition of input service as existed prior to 01.04.2008. Thus, it becomes evidentially apparent that the ratio of the pronouncements made in the said relied upon cases is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the subject case. 4.3 The issue involved in the present case is with regards to the refund claim made under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A part o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obal Financial Advisory India Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 231 (Tri. - Mumbai)] following has been held: 4. It is from Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, subject to Rule 4 therein, that a central excise or service tax assessee gets to appropriate credit of tax charged on procurement of goods and services which is reported to the jurisdictional authorities in the prescribed returns who are, then, enabled to recover credit that, according to them, is not within entitlement under the authority of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. One of the determinants of entitlement is utilization of procured goods or services in the manufacture of dutiable goods or rendering of taxable services and it may not always be possible for manufacturers and service providers to be able to segregate so at the threshold, or account for at the time of consumption, the ultimate deployment of, particularly, services and, in acknowledgement thereof, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 offers different avenues for reversal on actual, or mathematically approximate, segregation on their own initiative. Failure to voluntarily reverse empowers invoking of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e admissibility of the input service, rejected the refund which is not permissible, but the Revenue is of the view that the credit is not admissible. The first step is to a show cause notice invoking Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for denial of the Cenvat credit. Then only the refund can be rejected which was not done. Obviously the refund claim cannot be rejected by disputing the admissibility of the input services as held by this Tribunal in Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST-I, Mumbai - 2018-TIOL-1229 CESTAT-MUM. 8. Similar stand was adopted by the Tribunal in Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai v. Citicorp Services India Pvt. Ltd. thus : '4.4. ....... Further, the correctness of availment of Cenvat Credit at the stage of filing of refund claim cannot be questioned, since the statute deals with the situation differently.' It is seen from the impugned order that no such notice was issued to the appellant herein. The preliminary objections to the refund limited itself to a few objections that appear to have been responded to and none of those have proposed that the said amount of credit was to be recovered. In the absence of this critical r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circular No. 97/6/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder :- "......However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement : (i) the ownership of the goods and the property therein remain with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of service tax paid on the transportation up-to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at that said price." 4. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. [2009 (14) S.T.R. ....