h>10CS500MiscellaneousMANURamesh Nair,TRIBUNALSAdjudicating Authority#Appeal#Assessable Value#Assessment#Bench#Benefit#Board#Board Circular#Buyer#Cement#CENVAT#CENVAT credit#Charge#Component#Cost#Credit#Date#Duty#Excise Duty#Factory#Factory Gate#Final Product#For the Purpose of Assessment#Freight Charge#Goods#Identical#India#Information#Invoice#Order#Order-In-Original#Paper#Place of Removal#Precedent#Record#Removal#Report#Representative#Sales#Service#Superintendent#Tax#Transaction Value#Transportation#Tribunal#Value2021-12-2121650 -->

MANU/CS/0163/2021

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Excise Appeal Nos. 10421 of 2019 and 10423 of 2019

Decided On: 10.12.2021

Appellants: Sunil Rathi Vs. Respondent: C.C.E. and S.T.-Daman

and

Appellants: Salasar Cooper Vs. Respondent: C.C.E. and S.T.-Daman

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ramesh Nair

ORDER

Ramesh Nair, J. (Member)

1. The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of GTA services.

2. Shri Dhaval Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) denied the Cenvat Credit on the sole ground that appellant have not provided CAS-4 Certificate to justify the cost of the final product to ascertain that whether the freight element has been included in the cost of product or otherwise. He submits that the freight charges was borne by the appellant and the same is deemed to have been included in the sale value of the goods. He invited my attention to some sample invoices, LR's wherein, he has pointed out that no separate freight was charged to the customer and freight is included in the assessable value on which excise duty was paid. He submits that on the identical facts, this tribunal has considered the issue in hand in the case of M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENTS LIMITED Vs. CCE, KUTCHH-2019 (2) TMI 1487-CESTAT AHMEDABAD & M/S. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. KUTCHH- MANU/CS/0050/2019 : 2019 (2) TMI 1488- CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the decisions of this tribunal have been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.

3. Shri R.P. Parekh, learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the sale of the goods is at factory gate and not FOR. As per the definition of 'Input Service' only those GTA Services are eligible for Cenvat Credit where the GTA Service is up to the place of removal. Since in this case the factory gate is a place of removal, Cenvat Credit beyond the place of removal in respect of GTA is not maintainable. He also relied upon the following judgments:-

• CCE Vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.-MANU/SC/0065/2018 : 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC).

• ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER- 2018 (13) GSTL J101 (SC).

• CCE, NAGPUR Vs. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD- MANU/SC/1151/2015 : 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC).

• RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER- 2021 (44) GSTL J20 (Tri.-Chennai).

• ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. CCE, TIRPATI- 2019 (28) GSTL 84 (Tri.-Hyd.).

• VED PMC LTD. Vs. CCE, BELAPUR- MANU/CM/0703/2018 : 2020 (34) GSTL 442 (Tri-Mum).

• CCE, JAIPUR-I Vs. ARL INFRATECH LTD- MANU/RH/1412/2018 : 2019 (369) ELT 351 (Raj).

• JAMMU PIGMENTS P. LTD. Vs. CCE, C........