w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise

    Appeal No. E/48/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/373-374/BEL/2010, Dated: 14.10.2010 Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai -III) and Order No. A/89699/17/SMB

    Decided On, 26 September 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Mihir Mehta, Advocate And For Respondents: N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR)



Judgment Text


1. The issue in the present case is whether the Cenvat Credit in respect of outward GTA service for transportation of job work goods from Bhivandi and Rabale to various location of the appellant is admissible. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit on the ground that this transportation is not from the appellant

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

's Thane unit whereas it is from an independent location of the appellant i.e Bhivandi and Rabale onwards. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal, therefore appellant are before me. Shri Mihir Mehta, ld. Counsel for the appellant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the transportation has taken place from Bhivandi and Rabale unit but it is to the appellant's own locations. Service tax was paid by the appellant at their Thane unit, the ownership of the goods, remained with the appellant, goods were sold from depot therefore the place of removal is depot of the appellant from where goods are sold. Therefore whether the transportation is from appellant's Thane unit or form their Bhivandi and Rabale unit to the depot. GTA service is used up to the place of removal, as per the definition of the input service GTA service up to place of removal is admissible for Cenvat Credit.

2. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that as regard the Cenvat Credit on outward transportation which provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which reads as under.

[(l) "input service" means any service,-

(i) used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or

(ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal ,

and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal ;

From the above rule, it is seen that outward transportation upto place of removal is one of the input service on which Cenvat Credit is admissible. In the present case though transportation has taken place not from the appellant's Thane factory but in respect of their own goods from Rabale and Bhivandi onward to the depot. Therefore depot is place of removal, accordingly GTA service irrespective whether it is provided from the appellant's unit of from the other locations of the appellant to the depot entire transportation falls under the term "Outward Transportation up Place of Removal", which is an input service and credit is admissible. Impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed
OR

Already A Member?

Also