9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 400 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA Services - place of removal - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has held that credit is eligible from the place of removal upto the buyer s premises. However, in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court has held that when the sale is on FOR basis, all the charges / cost have to be included in the assessable value for the payment of central excise duty. Thus, in such cases, when the sale takes at buyer s premises, the place of removal is the buyer s premises. Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall look into the issue of eligibility of credit on GTA service after determining the place of removal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Disallowance of credit on GTA service.
The judgment addresses the disallowance of credit on GTA service by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the eligibility of the appellant for service tax credit paid on outward freight up to the buyer's premises. The appellant argued that the place of removal being the buyer's premises was not considered by the authorities below. The appellant cited Circular F. No. 116/23/2018-CX3 dated 8.6.2018, clarifying the place of removal in cases where the sale takes place at the buyer's premises. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise was also referenced by the appellant to support their claim for credit eligibility. The issue revolved around the determination of the place of removal to ascertain the credit's eligibility, leading the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need to determine the place of removal, considering the circular issued by the Board and a previous decision in the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed for remand to the appellate authority with specific directions for further consideration. The judgment delves into the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the eligibility of credit on GTA service. While the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case established that credit is permissible from the place of removal up to the buyer's premises, the Roofit Industries Ltd. case highlighted that in sales on a FOR basis, all charges must be included in the assessable value for central excise duty payment. This distinction becomes crucial when the sale occurs at the buyer's premises, designating it as the place of removal. The Board's circular dated 8.6.2018 clarified that in FOR basis transactions, the buyer's premises constitute the place of removal. Therefore, the determination of the place of removal emerges as a pivotal factor in assessing the eligibility of service tax credit on freight charges up to the buyer's premises. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to remand the matter for a thorough reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in light of the circular and relevant legal precedents. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the dispute concerning the disallowance of credit on GTA service, emphasizing the significance of determining the place of removal in cases involving sales on a FOR basis. By referencing pertinent legal decisions and the Board's circular, the Tribunal directs a remand to the appellate authority for a comprehensive review. The judgment underscores the need for a meticulous evaluation of the place of removal to ascertain the eligibility of service tax credit on freight charges, ensuring adherence to legal principles and precedents in resolving the contentious issue at hand.
|
