Page 87 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] SWEETY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA-I 301
clared by the principal under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act,
1944. Following the said procedure, the appellant have discharged the excise du-
ty on MRP declared by their principal after deduction of permissible abatement.
For transportation of goods from factory gate to the depot of M/s. Parle Products
Pvt. Ltd., the transportation charge was borne by the appellant and paid the ser-
vice tax on reverse charge basis. They availed the Cenvat credit in respect of such
Service tax paid on outward GTA. The case of the department is that in the case
of manufacture and removal of goods by the job worker, the factory gate is the
place of removal, therefore, GTA services used from the place of removal up to
depot is not admissible for Cenvat credit.
2. Sh. Sachin Chitnis, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that they are working in terms of Clause (ii) of para 2 of Notification No.
36/2001-C.E. (N.T.) according to which the appellant have entered into the shoes
of principal and the clearance of the goods is as if it is manufactured and cleared
by the principal. Admittedly the goods were cleared from the factory to depot of
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. in such case, the depot of M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
is place of removal as the goods are sold from the depot, therefore, outward GTA
is up to the place of removal. Accordingly, in terms of definition of Rule 2(l) of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit. In sup-
port of his submission, he placed reliance on the various decisions in the identi-
cal facts as follows :
• Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 16-7-2019 in case of
CCE, Jaipur-I v. M/s. Mound Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.
• Lao More Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 267 (T)
• M.P. Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 563
• M.B. Bakers Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2666
• S.G. Snacks India Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. 40920/2019, dated
9-7-2019.
• Genau Extrusion Ltd. vide Final Order No. 40924/2019, dated 12-7-
2019.
3. On the other hand, Sh. T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR)
appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned or-
der. He placed reliance on the following judgments :
• Kohinoor Biscuit Products - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 567 (Tri. - Del.)
• Kohinoor Biscuits Products - 2015 (38) S.T.R. J124 (All.)
• Sweetco Food Industries vide Final Order No. A/10329/2018, dated
13-2-2018 of CESTAT, Ahmedabad.
4. In the rejoinder, Sh. Sachin Chitnis submits that in the case of Kohi-
noor Biscuit Products, the issue was decided on the basis of definition of place of
removal as given under Section 4, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable
for availing the Cenvat credit when the valuation of final product is under Sec-
tion 4A. He submits that as per amendment made in Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 vide Notification No. 21/2014-C.E. (N.T.), dated 11-7-2014, the defini-
tion of place of removal for the purpose of Cenvat credit has been defined by
inserting clause (qa) of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After the definition
of place of removal brought in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the same is applicable
for the purpose of Cenvat credit, therefore, the judgments of Kohinoor Biscuit

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  207