9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 326 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit on GTA services - Scope of the terms means and includes - Rule 2(l) of CCR - Admissibility of GTA input service credit in view of the definition of input services given in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as it existed during the period of demands - Held that - Main body of the definition of term input service is wide and expansive and covers variety of services utilized by the manufacturer - By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that outward transportation service would not be a service used by the manufacturer for clearance of final products from the place of removal. The period involved is upto October 2005 when the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) specifically included admissibility of input service credit with respect to input services utilized from the place of removal is admissible - Only with effect from 01.04.2008 (under Notification No.10/2008-CE (NT), dt.01.03.2008), the words clearance of final products from the place of removal were submitted with the words clearance of final products upto the place of removal - Following CCE Vs. Parth Poly Woven Pvt.Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The expression includes cannot be used to oust any activity from the main body of the definition if it is otherwise covered by the expression means - The expression includes followed by means in any definition is generally understood to be expanding the definition of the term to make it exhaustive, but in no manner can the expression includes be utilized to limit the scope of definition provided in the main body of the definition Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Admissibility of GTA input service credit under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The appeals were filed concerning the admissibility of GTA input service credit based on the definition of input services in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The period in question ranged from January 2005 to October 2005 for one appellant and January 2005 to June 2005 for the other. The definition of place of removal and input service during this period was crucial for determining the admissibility of the credit. The appellant's representative argued that the outward transport service used by manufacturers for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the purchaser's premises fell within the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This argument was supported by a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a similar case. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Woven Pvt.Ltd. was cited, where it was held that outward transport service from the place of removal up to the purchaser's premises is covered within the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The High Court's interpretation of the expression 'from the place of removal' reconciled with 'upto the place of removal' within the definition of input service. The Court acknowledged that transportation of finished goods beyond the factory gate to places like warehouses or godowns, from where the goods would be further removed, constitutes outward transportation up to the place of removal, making it eligible for input service credit. After considering the arguments presented by both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) during the period in question allowed for the admissibility of input service credit concerning services utilized from the place of removal. The Tribunal noted that the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Parth Poly Woven Pvt. Ltd. was directly applicable to the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in court in favor of the appellants.
|
