9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1144 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Courier Service used by the appellant for goods transportation up to the customer s place - place of removal - Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT - The removal up to the customer s premises is covered by the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT , to which the appellant is not entitled to any CENVAT Credit. With regard to the other destinations, the narration of destination is only Manufacturer and Depot , which appears to be vague. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority has to verify the actual destination i.e., he shall verify the actual destination and if it is not again a customer s place, then allow the credit as per law - the issue is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal is partly remanded and partly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Alleged contravention of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing and utilizing Service Tax Credit on Courier Service. 2. Interpretation of the term "place of removal" in relation to availing Input Service Tax Credit on transportation services. Analysis: Issue 1: Alleged contravention of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Vee & Fan Belts and Oil Seals, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging the wrongful availing of CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid for Courier Service. The Notice claimed that the Courier Service was utilized beyond the place of removal, contravening Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, leading to an appeal by the appellant before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner, in the impugned order, rejected the appeal, citing the appellant's change in stance regarding the use of Courier Service for transporting finished goods instead of export goods. The Commissioner relied on relevant legal precedents to support the decision. The appellant then appealed the decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "place of removal" During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the Courier Service was used for transporting finished goods to the customer's place, emphasizing that the issue had been previously addressed by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Revenue representative, however, relied on lower authorities' findings and a Supreme Court decision regarding the interpretation of the term "place of removal." The appellant referenced a Tribunal decision in another case to support their claim that the place of removal should be considered the buyer's premises. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous decisions, including one involving Outward Transportation of Goods up to the buyer's premises. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT Credit for transportation up to the customer's premises based on settled legal principles. The Tribunal remanded the issue of credit for other destinations to the Adjudicating Authority for verification. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly remanded and partly dismissed the appeal based on the interpretation of the term "place of removal" and the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for transportation services. The decision highlighted the importance of contractual terms, factual evidence, and legal precedents in determining the applicability of tax credits in such cases.
|
