M\/s Multiwyn Foams Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Howrah
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 847 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 21-5-2018
Ex. Appeal No.76045\/18 – FO\/76576\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri S.P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K. Choudhary:
\nThis appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.422\/HWH\/CE\/2017-18 dated 18.12.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & C.Ex. (Appeals), Kolkata.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n3. I find that the only dispute in the present appeal is regarding Cenvat credit availed on the service tax paid by the appellants in respect of the services received by them from the various transporters towards outward transportation of excisable goods from the appellant's factory to the buyer's premises (carriage outwards) during the period 2006-200<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n \n7. Having regard to the definition of 'input service' that was prevailing at the relevant time i.e. prior to April 1, 2008, the aforesaid contention of the Department cannot be accepted. As per the said definition, service used by the manufacturer of clearance of final products 'from the place of removal' to the warehouse or customer's place etc., was exigible for Cenvat credit. This stands finally decided in Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2016 (Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum v. M\/s. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd.) vide judgment dated January 17, 2018. The matter is squarely covered by the Board's Circular dated August 23, 2007, relevant portion whereof is as under: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of M\/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Bhavnagar – 2007-TIOL-429-CESTAT-AHM, it was held that after the final products are cleared from the place of removal, there will be no scope of subsequent use of service to be treated as input. The above observations and views explain the scope of the relevant provisions clearly, correctly and in accordance with the legal provisions. In conclusion, a manufacturer\/consignor can take credit on the service tax paid on outward transport of goods up to the place of removal and not beyond that. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rom where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the 'place of removal' does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer\/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract\/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as al<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Multiwyn Foams Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., HowrahCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 847 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 21-5-2018Ex. Appeal No.76045\/18 – FO\/76576\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S.P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per … Continue reading “M\/s Multiwyn Foams Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Howrah”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15540","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“ISSUE: Up to what stage a manufacturer\/consignor can take credit on the service tax paid on goods transport by road?
\nCOMMENTS: This issue has been examined in great detail by the CESTAT in the case of M\/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana [2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 Tri-D]. In this case, CESTAT has made the follow<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn this connection, the 8.2 phrase 'place of removal' needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and the applicable provisions. The phrase 'place of removal' has not been defined in Cenvat Credit Rules. In terms of sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the said rules, if any words or expressions are used in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and are not defined therein but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n