TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst Order-in-Original No. 1/2009 dated 09.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order"), whereby the adjudicating authority confirmed recovery of CENVAT credit availed on outward transportation (GTA) services along with interest and imposed penalty under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.2 The Appellant, M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. (now known as The Ramco Cements Ltd.), is engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is duly registered with the Central Excise Department. 1.3 During the period November 2007 to September 2008, the Appellant cleared cement f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2020, set aside the order of remand and directed this Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the subsequent developments and binding judicial precedents. 2.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Appellant filed an application for restoration of the appeal along with an application for early hearing. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal allowed the Restoration of Appeal (ROA) and Early Hearing (EH) applications vide Miscellaneous Order dated 28.11.2025, restoring the appeal to its original number. 2.3 Upon such restoration, and having regard to the fact that the issue involved stands substantially settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal as well as subsequent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus attained finality which is binding on the Bench. 4.6 The Board itself, vide Circular No. 1065/4/2018CX dated 08.06.2018, accepted that determination of "place of removal" is a factual exercise based on sale terms. 4.7 In the Appellant's own case, for subsequent periods, proceedings were dropped vide Order-in-Original No. 06/COMMR/CE/2024-25 dated 27.02.2025, following the Larger Bench ruling. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjay Kakkar reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have carefully heard the submissions advanced by both sides, examined the appeal records in detail, considered the statutory provisions, and the case Laws cited. 7. Upon such comprehensive consideration, the following issues a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods passes only upon delivery at the buyer's premises, such buyer's premises constitute the "place of removal". 8.3 We note that the Appellant has consistently contended that the disputed clearances were effected on FOR destination basis, with freight forming an integral part of the sale price and ownership and risk remaining with the Appellant until delivery at the buyer's premises. However, the impugned order proceeds on a blanket assumption that the factory gate is the place of removal, without undertaking any factual examination of the underlying sale contracts, purchase orders, invoices, transport documents, or other relevant records. 8.4 The Larger Bench in Ramco Cements Ltd. has unequivocally held that the determination o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall constitute the "place of removal". Issue (ii): Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on GTA Services 9.1 The eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation is consequential and inseparably linked to the determination of the "place of removal" under Issue (i) above. (a) Period prior to 01.04.2008 9.2 For the period prior to 01.04.2008, the law stands conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasavadatta Cements Ltd., 2018 (11) GSTL 3 (SC) and Andhra Sugars Ltd., 2018 (10) GSTL 12 (SC), holding that outward transportation up to the "place of removal" qualifies as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 9.3 In the Appellant's own case, this Tribunal, vide Final Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OMMR/CE/2024-25 dated 27.02.2025 by following the Larger Bench decision. 10.2 In such circumstances, judicial discipline and consistency require that the same view be adopted for the present period as well, particularly when there is no change in facts or law. Any deviation would result in uncertainty and arbitrariness. 10.3 While the issue stands settled in principle by the Larger Bench and subsequent decisions in the Appellant's own case, the factual requirement of establishing FOR destination sales must still be satisfied for the disputed period. Conclusion 11.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold as a matter of law that: - i. The determination of the "place of removal" is a fact-based exercise and cannot be....