Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

....................................................................."since in this case the assessable value of the goods was being Watermined not under Sec. 4 but under Sec.4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the definition of "place of Removal" as given in Section 4(3) (c) cannot be adopted for the purpose of Cenvat credit rules 2004 and accordingly it is the factory gate which would be the place of removal. Moreover, even if the definition of "place of removal" is given in Section 4(3) (c) is treated as applicable to the cases where the duty on the finished goods is payable on the value determined under Section 4A, even then, the Depot of Mys Parle Biscuits cannot be treated as "Place of removal" in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellant as the, "Place of removal" defined in Section 4(3) (0) is the place of removal for the manufacture of the goods and in case, the manufacturer after clearing the goods from the factory to his depots (clears) all the depots it is those depots which would be the place of removal. However, when the manufacturer clears the goods to the depots of some other persons, those depots cannot be treated as "Place of removal for the manufacture, unless the sales are on FOR basis. For this reason also, the "Place of removal" in this case is factory of the appellant. and the depot of M/s Parle Biscuits. In view of this, we hold that the Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid on the GTA services availed for transportation goods from the factory of the appellant to the depot has been correctly denied and, as such, the Cenvat credit demand has been correctly up-held along with interest.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any nerit in the appeal. The same is dismissed."

5.10 I further observe that against the above detailed order of the Principal Bench, the appellant M/s Kohinoor Biscuit Products preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. However, the appeal was dismissed vide their order dated 07-10-2014. While dismissing the appeal, Hon'ble High Court observed as follows:-

"In the present case, the clear finding, which has been recorded both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the Tribunal, is that the sale had not taken place on an "FOR Destination" basis. Hence, the place of removal in the present case is the factory gate of the appellant not the Depot of Parle Biscuits. As a matter of fact, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals), the liability on account of freight is borne by Parle Biscuits. No amount was ne by the appellant towards freight under the agreement with Parle Biscuits. Hence, in this view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on GTA Service availed for the transportation of the goods from the factory of appellant to the Depot of Parle Biscuits, has been correctly denied. The view which has been taken by Tribunal is in accordance with law.