Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Banco Products India Ltd vs C.C.E & S.T.-Vadodara-I on 30 August, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/10794-10795/2016 (Arising out of OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-487 & 488/15/16 dt. 28.01.2016 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara) M/s Banco Products India Ltd : Appellant (s) Vs C.C.E & S.T.-Vadodara-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.08.2017 ORDER No. A/12124-12125/2017 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. These two appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-001- APP-487&488/15/16 dt. 28.01.2016 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara.
3. The short issue involved in the present appeals is: whether the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward Transit Insurance Service (GTA service) for the period April 2013 to December 2013 and January 2014 to December 2014. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shubhalakshmi Polysters Ltd. Vs. CCE & S.T, Vapi vide Order No. A/10424-10473/2017 dt. 27.02.2017.
4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I find that the issue of admissibility of service tax paid on Outward Transit Insurance Service (GTA service) for the period prior to 1.4.2008 and thereafter has been considered by this Tribunal in Shubhalakshmi Polysters Ltd.s case(supra). This Tribunal observed as:
17. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue in his submission even though did not contradict the meaning of place removal explained in the said circular, however submitted that the circular is binding on the Department and not on this Tribunal, which is free to take a contrary view. I do not find merit in the argument of the Ld. A.R in as much as in the context of allowing credit on outward freight (GTA service) the approach of the Board has been consistent all along even though the definition of place of removal borrowed from the Section 4 of CEA,1944 and later inserted in the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 w.e.f 11.07.2014. Also, even after the delivery of the judgment in Ispat Industries case, explaining the definition of place of removal in the context of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Board has not issued any further circular, restricting the meaning of place of removal in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outward freight (GTA service) is admissible when the condition of sale of goods puts burden on the manufacturer to deliver the goods at the buyers premises. This Tribunal has come to the same conclusion in Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd and Birla Corporation Ltd s case(supra). Further, I do not find merit in the contention that inclusion of element of freight in the assessable value or otherwise in any manner be a relevant factor for considering the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on outward freight (GTA service) for transporting the goods by the manufacturer from the factory to the premises of the buyer in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi III 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) and the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 5(Bom.).
5. In view of the above, to ascertain the place of removal from the condition of sale, so as to be eligible to CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on outward freight (GTA Service), the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the Appellant and the Appellant are at liberty to produce relevant evidences to establish their case. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. 3 Appeal No. E/10794-10795/2016