9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2285 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - GTA Service - Held that - It is not in dispute that the respondent has not complied with the condition of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 i.e. cost of transportation has been borne by the respondent. Insurance cost of transportation was also borne by the respondent and respondent was the owner of the goods till goods reached the premises of buyer. As these facts are not in dispute, therefore, I hold that respondent has complied with the condition of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 - Respondent has correctly availed cenvat credit on outward transportation service. Reliance placed by the Revenue in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur (2012 (8) TMI 627 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) has no relevance to the facts of this case as in that case the Tribunal has not examined the CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on outward transportation service beyond the place of removal. 2. Compliance with CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07. 3. Interpretation of ownership and cost-bearing in transportation of goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal concerns the entitlement of the respondent to Cenvat credit on outward transportation service beyond the place of removal, which the Revenue contested based on the definition of place of removal under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, a sugar and molasses manufacturer, bears the transportation cost, owns the goods until delivery to the buyer, and covers insurance costs. The Revenue argued against the Cenvat credit, citing the Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. case. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings in favor of the respondent, leading to the appeal. Issue 2: The respondent's compliance with CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 was a pivotal point in the case. The Circular required specific conditions to be met for availing Cenvat credit on outward transportation service. The respondent bore the transportation and insurance costs and retained ownership until delivery, aligning with the Circular's conditions. The Tribunal found no dispute in these facts, affirming the respondent's compliance with the Circular. Issue 3: The interpretation of ownership and cost-bearing in the transportation of goods played a crucial role. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing the relevance of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07, which was not considered in the former judgment. As the respondent fulfilled the Circular's requirements, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the Cenvat credit on outward transportation service, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. This judgment clarifies the conditions for availing Cenvat credit on outward transportation service beyond the place of removal, highlighting the significance of compliance with relevant circulars and distinguishing precedents based on factual distinctions and legal interpretations.
|
