Kingfa Science & Technology India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal challenged Order in Appeal No. 54/2017 dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of reaffirmed/filled polypropylene under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During verification of records, the department found that the appellant had availed input service credit on Security Service, Rent-a-Cab Service, GTA outward transportation service, outward courier service for despatch of goods, and insurance service for transportation of goods. Seven show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 8,78,146/-.
After adjudication, the original authority confirmed demand of Rs. 8,27,006/- relating to outward transportation service, outward courier service, and insurance service, and imposed penalty of Rs. 82,701/- under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Credit relating to security service and rent-a-cab service was allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant’s appeal, leading to the present proceedings before the Tribunal.
The appellant contended that the goods were transported on FOR destination basis and that the customer’s premises constituted the “place of removal.” It was argued that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services was therefore admissible. The appellant relied on an earlier Tribunal order in its own case under its previous name, M/s Hydros S & S Industries Ltd., where similar credit had been allowed. Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal’s decision in Ramco Cements Ltd. dated 16.10.2024. The appellant further argued that there was no reason for prolonged adjudication by placing the matter in the call book.
