2015 (6) TMI 1065 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of service tax paid on GTA Services - availed by them for outward transportation of their final products from the factory gate to their customer s premises - major part of demand involved in the demand is prior to 01.04.2008 - Held that - the issue for the prior period stands decided by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commr. of C.Ex. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT vide which Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal was upheld. Therefore, in view of the same the period prior to 01.04.2008 would not attract any demand and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for examining the appellant s claim that their sales were on FOR basis. - Appeals allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of service tax paid on GTA Services for outward transportation of final products.
2. Interpretation of "input service" definition before and after 01.04.2008.
3. Applicability of cenvatable input services for outward transportation services on FOR basis.
4. Remanding the matters to original adjudicating authority for re-examination.

Analysis:
The judgment by Archana Wadhwa, a Judicial Member at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, addresses the denial of the benefit of service tax paid on GTA Services for the outward transportation of final products. The appellants were denied this benefit, with a significant part of the demand being prior to 01.04.2008 when the definition of "input service" was changed from "from the place of removal" to "up to the place of removal." The issue for the prior period was resolved by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a specific case, upholding the Tribunal's decision. Various High Court decisions post-01.04.2008 state that if clearances are on a FOR basis and the appellant remains the owner of the goods until delivery at the customer's premises, the outward transportation services qualify as cenvatable input services.

The judgment sets aside the impugned orders and remands both matters to the original adjudicating authority for further examination of the appellant's claim regarding sales on a FOR basis. It is noted that the period before 01.04.2008 would not trigger any demand based on the Karnataka High Court's decision. The adjudicating authority is instructed to reconsider the issue in light of the mentioned decisions and any additional ones provided during re-adjudication. Both appeals are allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination by the original authority.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the denial of service tax benefits, the interpretation of the "input service" definition pre and post 01.04.2008, the applicability of cenvatable input services for outward transportation on a FOR basis, and the decision to remand the matters for further examination. The legal reasoning and precedents cited in the judgment offer a comprehensive understanding of the case and the considerations involved in reaching the decision.