Case Law Details
Bata India Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the Adjudicating Authority has mis-directed in denying the CENVAT Credit and that the Commissioner has not appreciated the facts of the case properly nor has she examined the facts of the case from the perspective of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. He would seriously contend that in view of the amended provisions, especially Rule 2(l) read with Rule 2(t) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the ‘place of removal’ is the place from where the goods are sold after their clearance from the factory; that in their case, the goods, which are manufactured in the factory, are stock transferred to their RDCs located at Faridabad, Kolkata, Bangalore and Thane and from these RDCs, the goods are again stock transferred to their retail outlets; till that stage, there would be no sale since there is absolutely no transfer of possession of the goods for a consideration. He therefore submitted that the transfer of possession would take place only at the retail outlets, which is the first point of sale and hence, applying the definition of ‘place of removal’ and ‘sale’, the retail outlets should be regarded as the place of removal.
CESTAT observed that though there is an observation in the impugned orders that the manufacturing activities would cease as soon as the goods were transported to the RDCs / Corporate Office after manufacturing, but however, there is no supporting evidence placed on this to establish that it is at these RDCs / Corporate Office that the clearance of goods in the form of sale took place. Rather, there is nothing placed on record to indicate the basis for such a conclusion.
In view of the above, CESTAT deem it proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, who shall examine the issue afresh in the light of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, keeping also in mind my observations in the above paragraphs, and then pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. All the contentions are left open. It goes without saying that the Adjudicating Authority shall afford reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
