TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts & Capital goods. They were also registered under the service tax for services such as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, business support service, works contract service etc. and were discharging service tax liability. For input services, they were availing Cenvat credit in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. During the course of audit it had been observed by the department that the appellants had availed Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on Outward transportation i.e. GTA under reverse charge mechanism which, according to them, was beyond the 'Place of Removal' as defined under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence not covered in terms of definition of 'input service' u/r. 2(l) ibid. 4. Two show cause notices issued to the appellants, denying the Cenvat credit of Rs.22,44,852/- and Rs.34,26,420/- for the periods October, 2014 to June, 2017 and August, 2016 to June, 2017 respectively and proposing its recovery alongwith interest and penalty, culminated in the Orders-in-Original dated 9.10.2018 & 10.6.2020 respectively confirming the recovery of the inadmissible Cenvat credit with interest and equal penalty. The Appeals filed by the Appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal position. He was mainly influenced by circulars of 2014 and 2015 issued by CBEC and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) while rejecting the appeals. 8. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Puducherry; 2023(12) TMI 1332- CESTAT Chennai- LB, wherein the Larger Bench, after comprehensively examining the statutory provisions, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) on the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on GTA service i.e. outward transportation of finished goods upto the place of delivery in the light of definition of input service u/r.2(l) ibid and the circulars issued by CBEC from time to time, has held that 'in a case where clearance of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the 'place of removal' by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on the GTA servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hip of the goods and property get transferred to the customer only on delivery of goods at the customer's premises and in such case, the customer's premises is to be treated as the 'place of removal'. 6. 'Place of removal' was not defined under Cenvat Credit Rules initially and w.e.f. 11.7.2014, the term 'place of removal' has been added under Rule 2 (qa) ibid which inter alia includes "------a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are sold after their clearance from the factory." 7. While rejecting the claim of the appellant, the authorities below have also referred the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T. vs. Ultratech Cement;2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC) and the circular dated 08.06.2018 issued by the CBEC as well. I have gone through the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by Revenue therein has recorded the finding that the credit has been allowed to the appellant relying on Board's circular dated 23.08.2007 for a post amendment case while applying the amended definition of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applying the judgements of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA service upto the place of removal." In the case of FOR destination sale such as in the matters of CCE, Mumbai vs.Emco Ltd.;2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC) and CCE vs.M/s.Roofit Industries Ltd.,2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC) where the ownership, risk in transit remained with the seller till the goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time seller alone remained the owner of the goods, benefit to avail Cenvat credit has been extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. Now coming to the facts of the present case. The authorities below have recorded that they did not find any documentary evidence to establish that the transfer of property had taken place on reaching premises of buyer. I have seen purchase orders and tax invoices placed on record by the appellant as annexures to the appeal and noticed that no separate amount has been charged by the appellant from its customer for delivery of the goods upto the customer's place. ....