9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 579 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - freight for outward transportation from the place of removal - Whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2005 to July 2007 - Held that - after considering the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) held that CENVAT credit is eligible on service tax paid on GTA service prior to 1.4.2008. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court is also of the same view in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2005 to July 2007. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the adjudication order. The main issue in this case revolved around the eligibility of the respondents to claim CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal between March 2005 and July 2007. The Revenue argued their case, citing a decision from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, while the respondent's counsel relied on judgments from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Upon reviewing the arguments and considering the relevant precedents, the judge found that the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court supported the eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on GTA service before April 1, 2008. The judge noted that the decision from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, as referenced by the Revenue, only provided temporary stay. Therefore, the judge concluded that the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court were directly applicable to the present case. Based on the above analysis and following the precedents set by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the judge found no fault in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent was disposed of. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the judge, thereby concluding the matter.
|
