Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.32/2014 (M-IV) dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd. Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M. Loganathan, AGM For the Appellant

Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of hearing/decision :13.3.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40277/2015

As the issue lies on a short compass, after dispensing with the requirement of predeposit, with the consent of both sides, I proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing and disposal.

2. The issue relates to denial of cenvat credit availed on GTA outward transport service of Rs.12,099/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and held that even though the cenvat credit is allowable on principle for GTA on sale on F.O.R basis on the ground that appellants have failed to produce any documentary evidence that terms of sale is on F.O.R Destination.

3. Shri M. Loganathan, Asst. General Manager appears on behalf of appellant and submits that they have supplied auxiliaries to M/s.Hyundai Motor India. As per the agreement, the sale price includes freight, packing, forwarding, loading and unloading upto the point of delivery. He produces copy of purchase agreement dt. 24.1.2002 and the purchase order dt. 26.3.2010, 6.4.2010 wherein the price is on F.O.R. basis. He relied on Tribunal's decision in Ultra Tech Cement Vs CCE & ST Rohtak  2014-tiol-1934-CESTAT-Del.

4. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order and submits that appellants have failed to produce documentary evidence before the appellate authority.

5. Heard both sides. The short issue relates to availment of cenvat credit on GTA outward transport service. Both the Lower Authorities held that the place of removal is at factory gate and no evidence produced claiming that sale is on F.O.R destination basis. On perusal of the copy of the agreement dt. 24.1.2002 and copy of purchase order dt. 26.3.2010, 6.4.2010 produced by the appellant. I find that the terms of supply is inclusive of freight, loading, unloading etc. and upto the point of destination and terms of the delivery is F.O.R. destination and the unit price is inclusive of freight and other charges. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Vs CCE & ST Rohtak (supra) decided the very same issue and held that credit is entitled on GTA outward transport service where the goods are sold on FOR basis. By respectfully following the ratio of the decision (supra), I hold that appellants are eligible for credit on GTA outward transport service as it is evident from the above that the sale is on FOR Destination basis. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Stay application is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER

gs

4