TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods upto customers' premises under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Whereas outward transportation i.e. GTA under reverse charge mechanism, according to the department, was beyond the 'Place of Removal' as defined under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore did not qualify as 'input service' u/r. 2(l), Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Accordingly, two show cause notices dated 8.1.2015 & 30.11.2017 were issued to the appellants proposing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs.16,96,013/- and Rs.20,56,784/- for the periods May, 2012 to December, 2013 and November, 2015 to June, 2017 respectively alongwith interest and penalty which culminated in the Orders-in-Original dated 28.01.2019 & 27.10.2018 respectively confirming the demand of Cenvat credit alongwith interest and equal penalty. The Appeals filed by the Appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected, leading to the present appeals. 5. It is relevant to note that with respect to the show cause notice dated 8.1.2015, this is the second round of litigation. In the first rou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Learned Commissioner (Appeals), rejected the appellant's claim primarily by relying upon the definition of 'input service' u/r. 2(l) ibid and the CBEC circulars of 2014 and 2015. They also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) and observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that 'no Cenvat credit will be allowed to the manufacturer in respect of GTA service availed on outward transportation of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises post April 1, 2008...' Thus the credit of service used in or in relation to the clearance of final products from the place of removal of the appellant up to the doorstep of customers would not be available to them. 9. 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 detailed examination of the statutory provisions and the decisions on the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on GTA service i.e. outward transportation of finished goods upto the place of delivery including the Judgement in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Atkin's speech......... is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972 (2) WLR 537] Lord Morris said : "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." 13. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 14. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides." 27. Applying the said principle to the present circumstances, it is seen that the Supreme Court, though in paragraph 13 observed that CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyers' premises was not admissible, but the principles in ascertaining the place of removal in the context of admissibility of CENVAT credit on GTA Services have not been laid down, as was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The said issue has been left open to be decided on the facts of each case. 28. The said judgment of the Supreme Court in Ultratech Cements has been subsequently considered by different High Courts. The Rajasthan High Court in Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the appellant and the purchaser, made it clear that the appellant was under obligation to deliver the goods upto the customer's premises and ownership in the goods gets transferred only at the customer's premises and the risk during the transit from the factory upto to the customer's premises i.e. the destination point, was borne by the appellant. He further submits that the freight charges also form part of the price of finished products and no separate freight was charged by the appellant. According to learned Counsel, as per CBEC circulars dated 23.8.2007 and 20.10.2014 respectively in the instant matter the customer's premises is to be treated as 'place of removal' and therefore the lower authorities erred in denying the credit in issue to the appellant. Learned Counsel also submits that in normal course of business when the goods are sold at factory gate or from the depot, ownership of goods transferred from the factory or depot as the case may be and in such cases the 'place of removal' is the factory gate or the depot. Whereas where the manufacturer was under contractual obligation to deliver the goods at the customer's premises, the ownership of the goods and property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircular is that the past cases to be decided by the authorities on the facts of each case after taking into consideration various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in that circular. 9. On similar issue, Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in the matter of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. CCT, Bangalore; 2022 (66) GSTL 434 (Kar.) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement (supra) and also the circular dated 8.6.2018, has held that from the facts of the case, it is clear that the title of the goods has passed on from seller to the buyer only on the place of destination, which is the address of the buyer. In the said decision, 'place of removal' has been held to be buyer's premises. 10. Similarly, Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Central Excise Appeal No.40575/2018 titled as M/s.The Ramco Cements Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry on similar issue, vide Interim Order No.40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 has held as under:- "35. In the result, in a case where clearance of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the 'place of removal' by applying the judgements of ....