LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELGAUM versus M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELGAUM v. M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2016) JANUARY 17, 2018 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: r. 2(1) – CENVAT credit – Entitlement to – On input service. i.e. tax paid on transportation of final products from the place of removal to depots or the buyers premises – Held: Assessee is entitled to CENAT credit on the tax paid on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point whether it is depot or the customer. Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing those of the assessees, the Court HELD: The expression used in r. 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is “from the place of removal”. It has to be from the place of removal upto a certain point. Therefore, tax paid on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is depot or the customer, has to be allowed. This view gets support from the amendment which has been carried out w.e.f. 01.04.2008 whereby the aforesaid expression “from the place of removal” is substituted by “upto the place of removal”. Thus from 01.04.2008, with the aforesaid amendment, the CENVAT credit is available only upto the place of removal whereas as per the amended Rule from the place of removal which has to be upto either the place of depot or the place of customer, as the case may be. Appeals are bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. [Paras 7, 8 and 9] [819-E- G; 820-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2010 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in C.E.A. No. 301 of 2010. WITH C.A. No. 10300 OF 2011 814 [2018] 1 S.C.R. 814 A B C D E F G H 815 C.A. No. 11923, 11914, 11898, 11899, 11919, 11904, 11925, 11870, 11924, 11900-11901, 11402, 11909, 11403, 11947, 11946, 11920, 11874, 11913, 11399, 11401, 11902, 11877-11884, 11876, 11922, 11921, 11400, 11875 OF 2016 K. Radha Krishnan, Y. P. Adhyaru, Sr. Advs., Arijit Prasad, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, H.R. Rao, Ms. Gargi Khanna, Mansih Pushkaran, Ms Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Zohib, Ms. Ooja Sharma, Ms. Sanskriti Bhardwaj, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Arup Banerjee, Sarbendra Kumar, Prakash Sharma, Chava Badrinath Babu, V.V. Rayudu, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Kartik K., Praveen Kumar, S. B. Sharma, Ms. Babita S., Advs. for the Appellants. S. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Aditya Bhattacharya, Ajit Kumar, Victor Das, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, M. P. Devanath, R. Parthasarthy, S. J. Amith, Purushottham Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, R.C. Prakash, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Sumit Goel, Abhiram Naik, Ms. Tanuj Agarwal, M/S. Parekh & Co., Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Abhisaar Bairagi, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Ranjit B. Raut, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Nikhil Swami, Ms. Divya Swami, Mrs. Prabha Swami, B. Krishna Prasad, Anand Sukumar, S. Sukumaran, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Ms. Meera Mathur, L. Badri Narayanan, Aditya Bhattacharjee, Victor Das, Yogendra Aldak, Karan Sachdev, Balaji Srinivasan, Garvesh Kabra, Somnath Shukla, Udit Jain, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Praveen Kumar, Abhishek Anand, Harish Pandey, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K. SIKRI, J. C.A Nos. 11710/2016,C.A. No. 11923/2016, C.A. No. 11914/2016, C.A. No. 11898/2016, C.A. No. 11899/2016, C.A. No. 11919/2016, C.A. No. 11904/2016, C.A. No. 11925/2016, C.A. No. 11870/2016, C.A. No. 11924/2016, C.A. No. 11900-11901/2016, C.A. No. 11909/2016, C.A. No. 11402/2016, C.A. No. 11403/2016, C.A. No. 11947/2016, C.A. No. 11946/2016, C.A. No. 11920/2016, C.A. No. 11874/2016, C.A. No. 11903/2016, C.A. No. 10300/2011, C.A. No. 11913/2016, C.A. No. 11399/2016, C.A. No. 11401/2016, C.A. No. 11902/2016, C.A. No. 11877-11884/2016, C.A. No. 11876/ 2016, C.A. No. 11922/2016 & C.A. No. 11921/2016. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELGAUM v. M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. A B C D E F G H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. 1. These appeals are preferred by the Central Excise Department against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as “CESTAT”) whereby the CESTAT has allowed to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “assessees”) CENVAT credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.