Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Carboline India Pvt Ltd vs Cce Chennai-Ii on 10 July, 2018
1
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/41630/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 183/2017 (CXA-II) dated
27.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-
II), Chennai)
M/s. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, : Respondent
Chennai II Commissionerate Appearance:-
None for the Appellant Shri. S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision:10.07.2018 Final Order No. 42011 / 2018 Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Epoxy, Polyurethane, Zinc and Thinners and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on freight charges for outward transportation of goods up to the customer's premises. The Department was of the view that the said credit is not eligible and 2 Show Cause Notice was issued, inter alia, proposing to disallow the credit and for recovery of the same along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority allowed the CENVAT Credit availed on sales commission, but, however, confirmed the demand in respect of freight outward charges along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, even though repeated notices were issued. The matter is taken up for disposal after hearing the Ld. AR as well as perusal of records.
3. The Ld. AR, Shri S. Govindarajan, submitted that the issue whether credit is admissible on freight charges for outward transportation up to the buyer's premises is settled by the decision in the case of C.C.E. & S.T. Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. - 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.).
4. I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. AR as well as perused the records. The appellant has stated in the grounds of appeal that the authorities below have erred in not appreciating that the work orders related to execution of Work Contract by both supply and applying the materials for which the raw materials (i.e. 3 chemicals) are to be moved to the work site of the customers by the appellant and thus, they have incurred cost for outward freight. Since the same has been already included in the assessable value of excisable goods as per Board Circular No. 97/8/2007 - ST dt. 23.08.2007, they are eligible for credit. However, the said issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for credit when the outward transportation is on F.O.R. basis up to the buyer's premises, has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra). Following the same, the period involved being after after 01.04.2008, I am of the view that the credit is not eligible.
5. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Sdd