Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Grasim Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 June, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/431/2010-SM, E/518/2010-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 218/2009 dated 09/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02/2010 dated 05/01/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Grasim Industries (Unit: Birla Super Bulk Terminal) Village Veerapura, Doddaballarpur 561 203 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR Building, Queens Road, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Preethu, Advocate World Trade Centre No.404-406, 4th Floor, South Wing Brigade Gateway Campus No.26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 055 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 26/06/2015 Date of Decision: 26/06/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order Nos. 21599-21600 / 2015 Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue is common.
2. The appellants have been denied the benefit of service tax paid on GTA Services availed by them for outward transportation of their final products from the factory gate to their customers premises. Major part of the demand involved in the demand is prior to 01.04.2008, when the definition of input service was from the place of removal and was subsequently changed to up to the place of removal. The issue for the prior period stands decided by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commr. of C.Ex. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. reported as [2011 (233) S.T.R 97 (Kar.)] vide which Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal was upheld. There are decisions of various High Courts for the past 01.04.2008 period laying down that if the clearances are on FOR basis and the appellant remains owner of the goods till the same are delivered at the customers premises and it is for the freight, in that case the outward transportation services have to be held as cenvatable input services.
3. In view of the above I set aside the impugned orders and remand both the matters to the original adjudicating authority for examining the appellants claim that their sales were on FOR basis. Further the period prior to 01.04.2008 would not attract any demand in terms of the Karnataka High Courts decision. The adjudicating authority would re-decide the issue in the light of the above referred decision as also the decisions which may be placed on record during the course of re-adjudication. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced in open court) (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss