Ultra Tech Cement Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai)
M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. appealed against denial of CENVAT credit of ₹15,46,386 under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The credit related to tax paid on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services availed during December 2015 to June 2017. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals–Thane), Mumbai had upheld the denial, leading to the present appeal.
The appellant submitted that the first appellate authority had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 117 (SC)] and the relevant CBIC circular. The appellant contended that the issue was no longer res integra in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Ramco Cements Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducheryy [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT CHENNAI-LB].
The Larger Bench had considered various Supreme Court and High Court decisions concerning the place of removal and held that, where goods are cleared under FOR contract terms, the authority must ascertain the place of removal by applying the Supreme Court decisions in Emco and Roofit Industries, the Karnataka High Court decision in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Board’s Circular dated 08.06.2018, for determining admissibility of CENVAT credit on GTA service up to the place of removal.
