Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hydro S&S Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 January, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/422/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.78/2012, dated 24.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Trichirapalli]
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order
for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s. Hydro S&S Industries Ltd.
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichirapalli
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Kamna Srikanth, Adv. Shri P. Arul, Supdt.-AR For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of hearing : 11.01.2013 Date of decision : 11.01.2013 Final Order No.____________ The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PP Mineral Moulding Compound, TPE Compounds in primary form and Nylon Mineral Compound. They availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. It has been alleged that during the period from Oct.09 to Aug.10, the appellant availed service tax credit of Rs.1,74,071/- paid on outward transportation of goods under GTA service. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,74,071/- imposed under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11(A)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act, as ineligible credit was taken on the service tax paid on outward freight. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating order.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the place of removal is customers premises. In this context, she draw the attention of the Bench of the purchase order, insurance policy and invoice.
3. The learned authorised representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R.470 (Tri.-Bang.). He submits insurance policy paid by the appellant would not cover particular transportation of goods. He further submits that in this case place of removal is the factory gate of the appellant-company and the Tribunal decided that after 31.03.2008, tax on GTA service would not applicable beyond the factory gate. He also relied upon the stay order of the Tribunal in the case of PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T.536 (Tri.-Mumbai).
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. (supra) held that after the amendment of Section 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules on 31.03.2008, the definition of input service means any service used by the manufacturer of final products, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of the final products upto the place of removal is an input service, on which credit would be eligible. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is the place of removal is the customers premises. On a perusal of the purchase order at Page 40 of the appeal, it is seen that place of delivery is the customers works and the freight charges was also included. The invoice is at Page 40 of the appeal also established that the freight was paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority observed that the insurance policy has no mentioned in particular transportation to a buyer and which is only open and general in nature. The case law relied upon by the authorised representative in the case of PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd. (suptra), wherein it was contended that the place of removal should be deemed to be buyers premises and air freight incurred for delivery to the buyers premises should be deemed to be input services. In that case, it was an export contract and the goods have to be delivered at the exporters premises abroad, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is apparent from the documents placed by the appellant that the goods are delivered at the Customers premises. Hence, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit on GTA Service. Hence, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit on GTA Service. In view of that, the denial of credit is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K. DAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 2