Page 88 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

302 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Products is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the period involved in
the present case is November, 2015 to June, 2017.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the issue
involved is that whether the appellant being manufacturer of ’Biscuit’ on job
work basis on behalf of M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. is entitled for Cenvat credit
on outward GTA when the goods are cleared to the depot of principal and excise
duty is paid on MRP based valuation in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise
Act, 1944. I find that there are many manufacturers of biscuits for same principal
M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and the modus operandi is that the goods are manufac-
tured on job work basis and the same is cleared to depot of M/s. Parle Products
Pvt. Ltd. and excise duty is paid on MRP based valuation. On the same facts, Di-
vision Bench of This Tribunal in case of M.P. Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. (supra) allowed the
Cenvat credit by giving following findings :
“11. Reading of above provision clearly shows that outward transporta-
tion of the manufactured product up to the place of removal falls within the
definition of input service. The appellant has placed on record the authori-
zation letter dated 15-3-2005 addressed by PBPL to Assistant/Deputy
Commissioner, Central Excise, Varanasi authorising the appellant to manu-
facture biscuit on their behalf. Further perusal of the terms and conditions
mutually agreed upon between PBPL and the appellant would show that as
per the job work contract the appellant were required to process and manu-
facture biscuit, carry out inspection, packing and delivery to various depots
of PBPL located all over the country as directed by PBPL. From the above
stipulation in the contract, appellants were under obligation to transport
biscuits to various depots of PBPL as such obviously the place of removal
was/were depots where the appellant was required to supply manufac-
tured biscuit as per direction of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellants
have transported the goods to the depots/premises of the principal manu-
facturer and paid transportation charges including the Service tax. In this
regard, the appellant have placed on record photocopies of Form TR-6 for
payment of Service tax in respect of the period in question. Thus, it is ap-
parent that the appellant has paid Service tax in respect of the input service
i.e. the outward transportation of the biscuits to the place of removal. As
such, in view of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules the appellant has rightly
availed Cenvat credit.“
6. The same view was taken in the case of M.B. Bakers Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court on the identical facts in the case of Mound Trading
Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that Cenvat credit is admissible to the job worker
like assessee and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. On the contrary, the Division
Bench of this Tribunal in case of Kohinoor Biscuit Products (supra) in the identical
facts after considering the provision of Section 4A and Section 4(3)(c) of Central
Excise Act and Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 held that goods cleared from
job work to principal manufacturer’s depot by determining the value of goods
under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the factory gate is place of removal
hence, the definition of place of removal as given in Section 4(3)(c) cannot be
adopted for purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 accordingly, Cenvat credit was
denied. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court in case of Kohinoor Biscuits Products wherein following order was passed :
“The appeal by the assessee arises from a decision of the Customs, Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 21 April 2014.

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  208