9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 573 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - goods transport agency service - Held that - Subsequent to amendment of input service under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 10/2008-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2008, substituting the word from in the said phrase to upto makes it clear that transportation charges were included in the phrase clearance from the place of removal upto the date of the said substitution and it cannot be included in the place of activities relating to the business . It has been held that such interpretation is available till 1.4.2008. There is no material available that the applicant delivered the goods at the customers premises and therefore the decision relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Hydro S&S Industries Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 479 - CESTAT CHENNAI) is not applicable in the present case. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel that the demand is partly barred by limitation, the authorities below have observed that the applicant has not declared in their invoice about the place of removal. Hence the ground of limitation would be looked into detail at the time of hearing the appeals at length - Following decision of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Partial stay granted.
Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid by the applicant as a recipient of goods transport agency service from November 2008 to August 2012; Barred by limitation for the period November 2008 to December 2010; Interpretation of "place of removal" in relation to CENVAT credit eligibility post-amendment in 2008. Analysis: The applicant, engaged in manufacturing forgings, faced denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid as a recipient of goods transport agency service from November 2008 to August 2012. The adjudicating authority issued three show-cause notices, resulting in a demand of &8377; 9,94,821/- along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant argued that the demand for the period November 2008 to December 2010 was partly barred by limitation, citing previous proceedings initiated by the Department for the period 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2007. The applicant contended that the customers' place was the "place of removal," supported by relevant documents and referencing a Tribunal decision in Hydro S&S Industries Ltd. vs. CCE. The demand for the normal period was approximately &8377; 5.25 lakhs. The learned AR opposed the applicant's claims, citing the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CCE, Bangalore vs. ABB Ltd. The AR argued that the applicant failed to provide evidence supporting their assertion that the customers' place was the place of removal. Referring to the amendment of the definition of input service in 2008, the AR contended that the applicant was not eligible to avail credit on GTA service at customers' premises post-April 1, 2008. The Tribunal found merit in the AR's submissions, emphasizing the interpretation of "input service" post-amendment and the lack of evidence regarding goods delivery at customers' premises, distinguishing the case from Hydro S&S Industries Ltd. The Tribunal noted the absence of material indicating goods delivery at customers' premises and deferred the limitation issue for detailed examination during the appeal hearing. After evaluating both parties' arguments, the Tribunal directed the applicant to predeposit &8377; 4,00,000/- within six weeks, with compliance due by a specified date. Upon such deposit, predeposit of the remaining dues was waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal proceedings.
|
