2014 (1) TMI 1790 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - freight charges - outward transportation - whether during the period January 2005 to September 2006 the Cenvat credit of Service Tax on the freight charges of outward transportation from the place of removal is admissible to the respondent or not? - Held that - The period involved in the present appeal is prior to 1-4-2008 when definition of Input Service u/r 2(i) of the CCR 2004 was amended in the present form - the outward transport service used by the manufacturers for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of input service provided in Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether Cenvat credit of Service Tax on outward transportation from the place of removal is admissible during the period January 2005 to September 2006.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the O-I-A passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in light of the Larger Bench judgment in the case of ABB Limited. The grounds of appeal stated that the interpretation of law by the Larger Bench was incorrect. The Revenue argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta had departed from the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court in similar cases. The respondent contested that the period involved was before 1-4-2008 and should be covered by the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court.

The main issue in the appeal was whether Cenvat credit of Service Tax on outward transportation from the place of removal was admissible during the period January 2005 to September 2006. The first appellate authority had allowed the credit based on the CESTAT Larger Bench judgment in the case of ABB Limited, which was confirmed by the Karnataka High Court. The Gujarat High Court, in a similar case, held that Cenvat credit admissibility with respect to outward freight from the place of removal was covered within the definition of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The High Court stated that outward transport service used by manufacturers for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is considered an "input service" under the Rules.

The period involved in the appeal was before 1-4-2008 when the definition of 'Input Service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended. The jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's judgment on the issue was considered, and it was concluded that the conflicting judgment of the Calcutta High Court would not rule the field. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the precedents set by the Gujarat High Court.