Ramco Cements Limited Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai remanded the appeals filed by the assessee concerning eligibility of CENVAT credit on outward Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for transportation of cement sold on FOR destination basis. The dispute related to periods from May 2016 to June 2017, during which the Department disallowed CENVAT credit amounting to ₹45.95 lakh and ₹38.43 lakh on the ground that outward transportation beyond the factory gate or depot was not eligible as “input service”.
The assessee contended that cement was sold on FOR destination basis and that ownership in the goods transferred only upon delivery at the customers’ premises. Therefore, according to the assessee, the buyers’ premises constituted the “place of removal”, making the outward GTA service eligible for CENVAT credit. The Department, however, treated the factory gate or depot as the place of removal and denied the credit.
The matter had previously been remanded by the Tribunal for determination of the “place of removal” in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Roofit Industries and related rulings. Even after remand, the adjudicating authority again concluded that the place of removal was the factory gate or depot, leading to further appeals.
