Sulekha Beevi C.S. ORDER
Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
1. The issue in all these appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of radiators and parts and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and service tax paid for input services. On verification of records, it was noticed that during the periods September 2009 to February, 2010 and October 2014 to April 2015, May 2015 to February 2016, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on outward transportation of goods for the goods cleared from their factory gate to their own units at Jamshedpur and Uttarakhand on stock transfer basis. Show cause notices were issued proposing to disallow the credit and for recovery of the CENVAT credit along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before this Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Ashwin Kumar submitted that the appellant in the present cases are contesting the issue of disallowance of credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods which were stock transferred to their own factory which is a manufacturing unit located at Jamshedpur and Uttarakhand. He referred to Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that the 'place of removal' is defined as a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods. In terms of Rule 2(qa) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 also the 'place of removal' means a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods. The place of removal is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale'. In the case of stock transfer, the entire goods are transferred to the other manufacturing unit of the appellant and therefore at the factory gate no sale takes place. Thus, in the case when the goods are stock transferred to their own unit for further manufacture, the place of removal cannot be considered as the factory gate. Only if there is a sale, the said point can be considered as a place of removal. To support his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. - MANU/SC/0483/2015 : 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC). The Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX : MANU/EXCR/0004/2018 dated 8.6.2018 was also relied by the ld. counsel for the appellant. He further took assistance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. - MANU/CE/0033/2017 : 2017 (52) STR 350 (Tri. Del.) and Cadbury India Ltd. - MANU/CM/0721/2015 : 2016 (42) STR 155.
4. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Ltd. - MANU/SC/0065/2018 : 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC). He argued that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the credit availed on GTA services upto the buyers' premises after 1.4.2008 is not eligible.
5. Heard both sides.
6. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions of law are reproduced as under:-
"Place of........