Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs C.C.E., Raipur on 18 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing: 6.10.2016 Date of pronouncement : 18.10. 2016 Central Excise Appeal No. 210 of 2012 Arising out of the order-in-original No.COMMISSIONER/RPR/CEX/50/2011 dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals.), Central Excise, Raipur. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Raipur .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Yogesh Agarwal, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, , Technical Member Final Order No. 54127/2016 B. Ravichandran:
This appeal is against the order dated 18.10.2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise,Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement liable to central excise duty.They are availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and input services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding appellants eligibility to credit of service tax paid on GTA services availed for transportation of cement from factory gate to their customers premises. The impugned order denied the credit on the ground that the place of removal is factory gate and hence no credit on such GTA service is available to the appellants.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The ld. Counsel for appellants pleaded that the sales are on FOR destination basis; during transit the ownership of goods in property remains with the appellants; risk of loss/damage is also with them and freight charges are integral part of price of goods. Reliance is placed on Boards Circular dated 23.8.2007 and various decided cases of Tribunal and High Courts.
3. We have perused some of the purchase orders.The supply of cement is at the premises of the customers. The freight is arranged and paid by the appellants. Similar set of facts were examined, in appellants own case, by he Tribunal vide order dated 3.9.2014 [2015 (37) STR 364 (Tri- Del.). The Tribunal held that when sales by the assessee were on FOR they legitimately availed cenvat credit on the service tax paid on the freight charges, borne for its FOR sales. Reference for similar decisions can be made to Grey Gold Cements Ltd. 2014 (54)STR 809 (A.P.), Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 TIOL 2123 CESTAT DEL, Birla Corporation Ltd. held 2016 TIOL 2082 CESTAT- DEL, Final Order No.A/75907/2016 dated 25.8.2016 of Tribunal in RCL Cement Ltd.
4. In view of the above settled legal position, we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 18/10/2016) (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/ Appeal No.E/210/2012 2