Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sundram Fasteners Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cgst & Central Excise on 23 November, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No.E/42174/2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.18 / 2017 (CTA-I) dt.27.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Chennai] Sundram Fasteners Ltd Appellant Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Date of hearing / decision : 23.11.2017 FINAL ORDER No.43023/2017 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel forgings. They are availing the facility of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During verification it was noticed that the appellant had availed credit on outward transportation services, which in the view of the department was not admissible.
2. Show Cause Notice was issued raising the above allegation and proposing to recover the wrongfully availed credit alongwith interest and also for imposing penalty. After adjudication, the original authority disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,06,887/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of Rs.53,444/-. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld.Counsel Shri.M.Kannan submitted that the appellant has availed the transportation services for clearance of their finished products upto the buyers premises and the delivery of the goods was on F.O.R basis. The issue whether credit is admissible on the service tax paid on GTA Services for outward transportation of finished products upto the buyers premises, when the delivery is on F.O.R basis is settled by various decisions of the Hon. High Court as well as the Tribunal as under :-
a. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs M/s.Aqua Flow, Coimbatore 2015-TIOL-2531-HC-MAD-CX b. Commissioner of C.EX. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Limited 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.) c. Commr. Of Cus.&C.EX., Hyderabad-III Vs Grey Gold Cements Ltd 2014 (34) S.T.R.809 (A.P.) d. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) e. M/s.Madras Cements Ltd Vs 1) The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, 2) The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore 2015-TIOL-1682-HC-KAR-CX f. Commissioner Vs Ellora Time Ltd. 2014 (34) S.T.R.801 (Guj.) g. RamalaSahkariChini Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I 2016 (334) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) h. Commissioner of C.Ex., Dehradun Vs Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (45) S.T.R. 198 (Tri. Del.)
4. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the Board Circular No.999/6/2015-CX dated 28.2.2015 has clarified that the assessee would be eligible for credit on GTA services for outward transportation if the ownership of the goods remain with the assesse till the delivery of the goods at the buyers premises. That the appellant had furnished necessary documents to establish that the goods were delivered on F.O.R. basis. That the same has not been considered by the authorities below.
5. The Ld.AR, Shri S.Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. Heard both sides. The Ld.Counsel for appellant has submitted that the GTA Services were availed for outward transportation of finished goods which were delivered on F.O.R. basis. The issue whether credit is admissible on outward transportation services upto buyers premises when delivered on F.O.R. basis is settled by the decisions relied by the Ld.Counsel. Further the Board Circular also clarifies the same. It is also submitted that in similar matter, the Tribunal have remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to look into the documents and decide whether the said decisions are applicable. Following the same, I am of the view that the documents requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority for which I deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority who is directed to look into the documents and decide whether the decisions cited above are applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S) Member (Judicial) Rkp 4 1