2012 (5) TMI 427 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit on GTA services - receipt or non receipt of inputs in factory premises - held that - the adjudicating authority in the present case has come to the conclusion that the GTA service on which the cenvat credit is claimed would not be admissible when the inputs itself were not received in the factory during the relevant period. - However the respondent claimed that all the documents relating to transportation of the inputs to their factory were produced before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) - matter remanded back for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against denial of cenvat credit on GTA services for bringing inputs
- Consideration of evidences in relation to transportation of inputs to factory
- Adjudication based on earlier order without discussion of claimed evidences

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the denial of cenvat credit on GTA services used for bringing inputs into the factory. The Revenue contended that the reduced sponge iron received by the respondents cannot be used as input in the manufacture of high-grade sponge iron. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the respondents based on documents produced regarding the transportation of inputs to the factory. However, the adjudicating authority based its decision on an earlier order by the Commissioner, which stated that the inputs were not received by the factory during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the claimed evidences were not discussed in the impugned order, leading to the conclusion that the order was not sustainable. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, considering all aspects and evidences presented by the respondents.

2. The key argument put forth by the Revenue was that the reduced sponge iron received by the respondents could not be used as input in the manufacturing process of high-grade sponge iron. On the other hand, the respondents had produced documents such as delivery challan and consignment notes to support their claim that the inputs were transported to their factory for utilization in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss these claimed evidences in the impugned order, leading to the decision of remanding the case for a fresh consideration.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority had based its decision on an earlier order by the Commissioner, which stated that the inputs were not received by the factory during the relevant period. However, the respondents had claimed to have produced all documents related to the transportation of inputs to their factory before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the evidences claimed by the respondents were not discussed in the impugned order, and the decision was solely based on the earlier order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the importance of considering all aspects and evidences presented by the respondents for a fair decision-making process.