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.
The appellant further submitted that the same Larger Bench decision had been followed by the Tribunal in its own dispute in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Audit), Bhubaneswar [2025 (3) TMI 259 – CESTAT KOLIKATA].
The Department’s Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order and submitted that the Supreme Court decision was required to be followed.
The CESTAT Mumbai found that the issue had already been resolved by the Larger Bench decision in Ramco Cements Ltd and that the same decision had subsequently been followed in the appellant’s own dispute. In view of the resolution of the issue, the Tribunal found no ground to sustain the impugned order.
Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, thereby allowing the appellant’s challenge to the denial of the CENVAT credit.
Recent Cases Discussed
- Ultra Tech Cement Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Audit), Bhubaneswar, [2025 (3) TMI 259 – CESTAT KOLIKATA]
- Ramco Cements Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducheryy, [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT CHENNAI-LB]
- Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, (2023) 9 Centax 362 (Tri.-Chan)
- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II, 2021 (44) G.S.T.L. 155 (Tri.- Mumbai)
- Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana, Final Order No. 60024/2024 dated 25.01.2024- CESTAT Chandigarh
- Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur, 2023 (4) Centax 271 (Tri.- Bom.)
- M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST, Commissionerate, Final Order No. 50649-50661/2025 dated 13.05.2025 in Excise Appeal No. 51503 of 2022- CESTAT New Delhi
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
This appeal arises from denial of credit of ₹ 15,46,386, from operation of rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, being tax on ‘goods transport agency (GTA)’ service charged upon them in accordance with Finance Act, 1994, that had been availed by the appellant, M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, for the period from December 2015 to June 2017. The challenge to denial before the first appellate authority did not succeed as set out in order1 of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals – Thane), Mumbai leading to this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the affirmation of the denial of entitlement of credit by the first appellate authority followed the decision that, according to the show cause notice, had been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 117 (SC)], and circular2 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) adjuring tax authorities to formulate findings on recovery according to the facts of each case and, in particular, with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on supply of goods at the premises of the customer. Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue was no longer res integra inasmuch as a Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in Ramco Cements Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducheryy [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT CHENNAI-LB], after examining several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of several High Courts, concluded that
‘32. The interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court by the High Courts as above throws light on the controversy. The Rajasthan High Court in Mangalam Cements simply referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court without analyzing its applicability in the context of the case in denying the credit on GTA service. The Supreme Court set aside the said judgment and remanded the case to examine the facts in the light of the judgment. On the other hand, in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, all aspects of the case have been considered, including the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board, and the judgments of Supreme Court in Emco Ltd. and Roofit Industries to conclude that the place of removal is the buyer’s premises.
xxxxx
35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the ‘place of removal’ by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal.’
3. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order and submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have to be conformed to.
4. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in re Ramco Cements Ltd and the same having been followed in their own dispute in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Audit), Bhubaneswar [2025 (3) TMI 259 – CESTAT KOLIKATA], the issue stand resolved.
5. With resolution of the issue as above, there is no ground to sustain the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to allow the appeal.
(Dictated and Pronounced in Open Court)
Notes:
1 [order-in-appeal nob. DL/308/APPEALS THANE/BW/2021-22 dated 22nd March 2022]
2 [no. 1065/4/2018-Cx dated 8th June 2018]
