9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 993 - SC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Input service - GTA - goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to depots or the buyers premises - interpretation of statute - input service which is defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the expression used in the aforesaid Rule is from the place of removal . It has to be from the place of removal upto a certain point. Therefore, tax paid on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is depot or the customer, has to be allowed. Our view gets support from the amendment which has been carried out by the rule making authority w.e.f. 01.04.2008 vide N/N. 10/2008CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008 whereby the aforesaid expression from the place of removal is substituted by upto the place of removal . Thus from 01.04.2008, with the aforesaid amendment, the CENVAT credit is available only upto the place of removal whereas as per the amended Rule from the place of removal which has to be upto either the place of depot or the place of customer, as the case may be. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on goods transport agency service for transport of goods from the place of removal to depots or buyers' premises. 3. Impact of the amendment to Rule 2(l) effective from 01.04.2008. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of "input service" as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The definition is divided into two parts: the first part uses the term "means" and the second part uses "includes." The first part defines input service as any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service or used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products "from the place of removal." The second part lists specific services included as "input services." 2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on goods transport agency service for transport of goods from the place of removal to depots or buyers' premises: The appeals by the Central Excise Department challenge the CESTAT's decision, which allowed the assessees CENVAT credit on goods transport agency service availed for transporting goods from the place of removal to depots or buyers' premises. The Full Bench of CESTAT, upheld by the Karnataka High Court, interpreted the first part of the definition of "input service" to include services used in the clearance of final products "from the place of removal." The CESTAT concluded that input services used for transportation from the place of removal to depots or customers' premises qualify for CENVAT credit. The court emphasized that the term "from the place of removal" implies that CENVAT credit should be allowed for transportation from the place of removal to the first point, whether it is a depot or the customer's location. 3. Impact of the amendment to Rule 2(l) effective from 01.04.2008: The judgment also addresses the amendment to Rule 2(l) effective from 01.04.2008, where the phrase "from the place of removal" was changed to "upto the place of removal." This amendment clarified that after 01.04.2008, CENVAT credit is available only up to the place of removal. The court noted that the interpretation of the rule before the amendment allowed CENVAT credit for transportation from the place of removal to the first point of delivery, whether a depot or the customer's premises. Judgment: The appeals by the Central Excise Department were dismissed, affirming the CESTAT's interpretation of "input service" and eligibility for CENVAT credit on transportation from the place of removal to depots or buyers' premises. The court found no error in the CESTAT's approach, as upheld by the Karnataka High Court. Additionally, the court acknowledged the amendment effective from 01.04.2008, which restricts CENVAT credit to services up to the place of removal. Separate Judgments: - Civil Appeal No. 11400 of 2016: The CESTAT had rejected the appeal due to a delay of 85 days, upheld by the High Court. The court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum vs. M/S. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. - Civil Appeal No. 18897 of 2017: This appeal by the assessee was allowed in terms of the order passed in Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum vs. M/S. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. In conclusion, the court upheld the CESTAT's interpretation of "input service" and dismissed the Department's appeals, affirming the eligibility for CENVAT credit on transportation services from the place of removal to depots or buyers' premises, while also acknowledging the impact of the amendment effective from 01.04.2008.
|
