9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 652 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service - outward transportation upto March, 2008 - place of removal - Period involving prior to the amendment of the definition of input service under Notificaion No. 10/2008-CE (N.T) dated 01.03.2008 - HELD THAT - The issue of availability of CENVAT Credit paid on outward transportation upto March, 2008 i.e. prior to the amendment of the definition of input service under Notificaion No. 10/2008-CE (N.T) dated 01.03.2008 has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Guntur Vs. Andhra Sugars Limited 2018 (2) TMI 285 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Once it is accepted that place of removal is the factory premises of the assessee, outward transportation from the said place would clearly amount to input service. That place can be warehouse of the manufacturer or it can be customer s place if from the place of removal the goods are directly dispatched to the place of the customer. One such outbound transportation from the place of removal gets covered by the definition of input service. Thus, the appellant/assessee is eligible for availment of CENVAT Credit of outward transportation of goods from the place of removal to the warehouse or customer s place - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Availability of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid on outward transportation prior to the amendment of the definition of "input service" by Notification No. 10/2008-CE (N.T) dated 01.03.2008.
Analysis: The appeal was listed for admission despite the amount involved being less than ?2.00 lakhs, as the appellant intended to contest the issue on merits. The dispute focused on the availability of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outward transportation up to March 2008, before the amendment of the definition of "input service." The Ld. Advocate for the appellant argued that the only issue in the appeal was the availability of CENVAT Credit, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and later appealed by the Department. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Both sides presented their arguments, and the Tribunal examined the issue based on the definition of "input service" prevailing before the amendment. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment which clarified that transportation of goods from the place of removal to the warehouse or customer's place qualified for CENVAT Credit under the pre-amendment definition of "input service." The Tribunal highlighted that the phrase "place of removal" was crucial in determining the eligibility for availing credit on service tax paid on transportation of excisable goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the eligibility depended on where the goods were removed, such as a factory gate sale, non-duty paid warehouse, or duty paid depot. The Tribunal also discussed scenarios where the manufacturer might claim the sale occurred at the destination point based on the sale contract terms. Referring to relevant Circulars and judgments, the Tribunal concluded that outbound transportation from the place of removal, whether to a warehouse or customer's place, constituted an input service eligible for CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefit to the appellant. In summary, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the interpretation of the definition of "input service" before the 2008 amendment, emphasizing the significance of the "place of removal" in determining eligibility for CENVAT Credit on outward transportation of goods. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling, allowing the appellant to avail CENVAT Credit on outward transportation from the place of removal, whether to a warehouse or customer's place.
|
