Kerala HC: PIO Doesn’t Have Authority to Start Investigative Process under Section 7 of RTI Act  ||  Delhi HC: Conditional Order Must be Complied with Strictly  ||  Delhi High Court: No Entitlement of Registration in India if Trademark Registered in Other Countries  ||  Delhi High Court: Controller of Patents Must Clearly Specify ‘Known Substance’ in Hearing Notice  ||  Patna HC: JJ Act is Based on the Belief that Children are the Future of the Society  ||  Delhi High Court: No Immunity Under FEMA for Offence Covered Under IPC  ||  SC: Statutory Mandates Under MSMED Act Cannot be Overridden by Private Arbitration Clauses  ||  SC: High Time that Arbitr. Clauses are Phrased With Precision & Not Couched in Ambiguous Phraseology  ||  SC Criticises Telangana Government for ‘Pre-Planned’ Cutting of Trees in Kancha Gachibowli  ||  Supreme Court: Crude Soybean Oil is Eligible for Customs Duty Exemption    

Shri Sunil Rathi vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (10 Dec 2021)

Transaction value at which the goods are sold has to be taken for the purpose of assessment

MANU/CS/0163/2021

Excise

The issue involved is that, whether the Appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of GTA services. The Appellants submits that, the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner denied the Cenvat Credit on the sole ground that, Appellant have not provided CAS-4 Certificate to justify the cost of the final product to ascertain that whether the freight element has been included in the cost of product or otherwise. He submits that, the freight charges were borne by the Appellant and the same is deemed to have been included in the sale value of the goods.

The lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit on GTA Services on the sole ground that, the Appellant have not supplied the CAS4 Certificate to ascertain the cost of product and whether the freight element is included or otherwise. The sale of the goods is on Principle to Principle basis. As per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the transaction value at which the goods are sold has to be taken for the purpose of assessment. In case of the value arrived at, as per Section 4(1)(a), no question can be raised.

Moreover, in the facts of the present case, the freight is deemed to have been included in the assessable value and on such assessable value, excise duty was charged which is evident from the sale invoice which shows that, the Appellant have not collected the freight separately from the customer. The freight charge was borne by the Appellant themselves.

In present case, the transaction should be considered as FOR sale and accordingly, the buyer's place shall become place of removal as all the expenses up to the delivery of the goods at the buyer's place was borne by the Appellant. On this principle, this tribunal has considered the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on Outward GTA in the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE and the credit was allowed. Accordingly, the Appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit on Outward GTA in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   CENVAT CREDIT   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved