ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. CCE & ST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee and the learned AR for the respondent/Revenue with the consent of the parties, the appeal is disposed of after waiving pre -deposit, as the issue arising is covered by finding precedents. The appeal is preferred against the adjudication order dated 29/04/13 of the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak. The order disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,19,79,457/ - availed by the assessee on outward transportation charges besides confirming levy and collection of interest and penalty as specified in the impugned order.

(2.) TWO show cause notices dated 12/12/11 and 05/03/12 covering the periods May 2008 to January 2011 and February 2011 to January 2012, respectively, triggered the proceedings. The first show cause notice dated 12/12/11 invoked the extended period of limitation; the normal period under this show cause notice being December 2010 to January 2011, the prior period being covered by the extended period. After due process the impugned adjudication order was passed.

(3.) THE assessee also relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Union of India : 2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P & H), which reversed a contrary view expounded by this Tribunal in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana : 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tri. Del.). The Punjab & Haryana High Court answered the questions of law in favour of the assessee by holding that in case of FOR destination sales where the entire cost of freight is paid and borne by the manufacturer; the same would be an input service with the meaning of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The High Court also referred to Board Circular No. dated 23/08/2007, which was issued subsequent to the Tribunal judgment in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra). This Circular clarified [not withstanding the Tribunals view] as follows: -