TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ filled polypropylene falling under Chapter 39 of CETA. During verification of records of the appellant by the department, it was found that they had taken input service credit on various services namely Security Service, Rent-a-Cab service, GTA Outward Transportation, Outward Courier Service for despatch of goods and Insurance Service for transportation of goods. Seven Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant proposing to demand a total CENVAT credit amount of Rs.8,78,146/-. After due process of law, the Ld. Original Authority confirmed the duty demand to the extent of Rs.8,27,006/- one involved on (i) outward transportation service, (ii) outward courier and (iii) insurance services and imposed a penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed. Submissions made by the Respondent-Revenue 3.2 Smt. G. Krupa Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue submitted, that the legal issue was no longer res integra and has been decided by the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND S.T. Vs ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD [2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.), Dated: 01.02.2018]. She stated that as per the said judgment it was held that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer's premises was not admissible. She hence prayed that the appeal may be rejected. Analysis 4. I have heard the parties and perused the appeals. 5. I find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ULTRA TECH CEMENT LT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that credit of service tax paid for outward transportation of goods is not eligible. The Board vide Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 had issued a clarification wherein it was stated that the place of removal has to be determined as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.)] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ispat Industries Ltd. [2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC)]. If the buyer's premises is the place of removal, the appellant would be eligible for credit. The very same issue was referred to the Larger Bench and as per the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been much litigation on this issue. Recently, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal vide Interim Order No. 40020/2023 dated 21.12.2023 held that the place of removal has to be ascertained by applying the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emco (supra), Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High of Karnataka in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. (supra). The Board Circular dated 08.06.2018 is also applicable to decide the admissibility of CENVAT credit. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- "35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the 'place of removal' by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Larger Bench would be applicable." 11. In compliance with the judicial discipline and appreciating the above decisions cited supra, these appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Lower Adjudicating Authority who is directed to verify the documents and ascertain the place of removal. The appellant would be eligible for the CENVAT credit, in case, the Buyer's premises is the place of removal. The decision passed by the Tribunal in their own case as well as the Larger Bench decision vide [Interim Order No. 40020/2023 date 21.12.2023] would be applicable." (emphasis added) 6. In the present appeal also the appellant has consistently held that the goods are sold on a FOR destination basis; that the freight charges ar....