LAWS(CE)-2011-8-78

PALCO METALS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On August 19, 2011
Palco Metals Limited Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals filed by the Appellants are being taken together for decision in view of the fact that the issue involved in all the orders is same and only period is different. The Appellants were not taking credit of service tax paid on GTA services for outward transportation till the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ambuja Cements Limited v. UOI, 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P & H). After this decision was given the Appellants took credit for the earlier period also and thereafter, show cause notices have been issued. Thus, three orders have been passed for different periods demanding service tax credit taken by the Appellant from 2007 onwards till 31.08.2009.

(2.) HEARD both the sides. As far as availing of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA services for outward transportation of goods manufactured, taken as credit by the Appellant for the period prior to 01.4.2008, the issue is no more res -integra and has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Limited, 2011 (23) STR 97 (Karn). The Hon'ble High Court in this case took a view that prior to amendment of definition of input service "up to the place of removal" in the place of "from the place of removal", the credit of service tax would be admissible. Therefore, for the period prior to 01.4.2008, the credit taken by the Appellant has to be allowed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by Learned Chartered Accountant and I find myself in agreement with his submissions that the purchase orders is on FOR basis and it is the responsibility of the seller to deliver the goods at the buyers premises. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned lower authorities that the sale is at the factory gate, cannot be accepted. Further, the Board's Circular issued in this regard vide No. 97/8/2007 -ST dated 23.08.2007 supports the contention of the Appellants that the buyers' premises has to be considered as a place of removal. The relevant portion of the Circular is extracted and reproduced below: