2018 (10) TMI 1642 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - transportation of goods from the factory to the buyer s premises - place of removal - CBEC circular no. 116/23/2018 dated 08/06/2018 - Held that - CBEC after considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Roofit Industries Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT and Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT , has come to a conclusion that there can be some exceptions to the general rule laid down regarding place of removal - the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating authority for re-examination in the light of CBEC order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on transportation of goods to buyer's premises.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit: The primary issue in this bunch of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for the Service Tax paid on the transportation of goods from the factory to the buyer's premises. The appellant's counsel referred to a CBEC circular clarifying that in certain cases where the place of removal is the buyer's premises, the price of freight is included in the assessable value. The Tribunal had previously remanded similar matters for verification.

2. Legal Arguments: The respondent's representative argued that the issue had been conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. The Tribunal considered various Supreme Court judgments, including Roofit Industries Ltd., Ispat Industries Ltd., Emco Ltd., and Ultratech Cement Ltd., and noted that exceptions to the general rule regarding the place of removal could exist. The Tribunal had previously remanded matters to examine whether the GTA service extended up to the place of removal or beyond, emphasizing the need to verify facts before applying Supreme Court judgments directly.

3. Decision and Remand: After reviewing the submissions and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the matters were identical to the ones previously remanded and set aside the impugned orders. The Tribunal remanded the matters to the original Adjudicating authority for re-examination in light of the CBEC order and directed that the adjudication be done afresh, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing. The Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous applications accordingly.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed the issue of admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on transportation to buyer's premises, considering legal arguments, previous remands, and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remanded the matters for re-examination based on the CBEC order, emphasizing the importance of verifying facts before applying legal principles directly.