Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 8 April, 2013
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ritu Bahri
1
CEA No.17 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CEA No.17 of 2013
Date of decision: 08.04.2013
Ultratech Cement Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. M.P.Devnath, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL)
The present appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') arises out of an order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "The Tribunal"), whereby on an application of waiver of pre-deposit of the amount, the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs.1 crore within a period of 8 weeks.
2CEA No.17 of 2013
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and is paying excise duty. The issue is the payment of service tax on outward transportation of goods. Rule 2(1)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The learned Tribunal has granted benefit of the outward transportation on the goods transported till March, 2008, but denied the same benefit in respect of goods transported on or after 01.04.2008 in view of the amendment in the Rules.
A perusal of clause 8.1 of the Invoice shows that "in case F.O.R. contract risk of loss and damage to the Goods shall be transferred to the Purchaser when it has been dispatched from the Supplier's or their vendor's custody". Relying upon the said clause, Mr. Bindlish argued that the place of removal is the factory premises of the appellant and, therefore, the service tax would be payable on the outward transportation of goods. Whereas, on behalf of the appellant, it is argued that the goods were to be delivered by the appellant F.O.R. and the place of removal of goods shall be the destination of the consumer.
The question which arises for consideration in appeal before the Tribunal is whether the place of removal is the factory premises of the appellant or the point of delivery to the consumer. We find that such question is a disputed question of law and facts. We do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration at the stage of waiver of pre deposit of the amount of duty.
However, at the oral request of the appellant, we grant four weeks' time to the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.1 crore as directed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
3 CEA No.17 of 2013 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE April 08, 2013 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vimal JUDGE