2018 (8) TMI 1573 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - GTA Service - place of removal - Held that - The definition of input service underwent an amendment from 1.4.2008 where the words from place of removal was substituted with upto place of removal - the GTA services upto the buyer s premises would not be eligible after 1.4.2008 - appellant would not be eligible for credit on outward transport upto buyers premises after 1.4.2008. CENVAT credit - inward transportation - time limitation - Held that - The department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the appellants have evaded duty by suppressing facts. Hence, appeal succeeds on limitation - appellant is liable to pay duty for the two months period beyond the normal period. - However, that being an interpretational issue, the penalty in respect of these months cannot sustain. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA service for transportation of goods.
2. Eligibility of credit on inward transportation.
3. Interpretation of the definition of input services pre and post 1.4.2008.
4. Allegation of suppression of facts to evade payment of duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA service for transportation of goods
The appellant, a manufacturer of tractor parts registered under the category of Goods Transport Agency service, wrongly availed CENVAT credit on GTA service. The appellant argued that pre-1.4.2008, credit on GTA service was eligible up to the buyer's premises, but post-amendment, it was not. Citing the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., it was contended that the credit on outward transport to buyer's premises post-amendment was not eligible. The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant on this issue, disallowing the credit on outward transport post-amendment.

Issue 2: Eligibility of credit on inward transportation
The appellant claimed credit on inward transportation for bringing inputs into the factory, arguing that it was directly related to the manufacturing activity and thus eligible for credit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, holding that activities directly related to manufacturing, such as inward transportation for procuring inputs, are eligible for credit.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the definition of input services pre and post 1.4.2008
The Tribunal considered the amendment in the definition of input services pre and post 1.4.2008, where the words "from place of removal" were substituted with "upto place of removal." Citing the Ultratech Cement Ltd. case, it was established that GTA services up to the buyer's premises were not eligible for credit post-amendment. The Tribunal ruled in line with this interpretation, disallowing credit on outward transport post-amendment.

Issue 4: Allegation of suppression of facts to evade payment of duty
The appellant argued that they availed credit on a bona fide belief of eligibility based on precedents like ABB Ltd. and Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged the interpretational issue and held that the appellant did not suppress facts to evade duty. The appeal succeeded on the grounds of limitation, with the demand set aside for the period beyond the normal period. The penalties for that period were also not sustained due to the interpretational nature of the issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand on limitation grounds and penalties for the normal period. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05.06.2018.