9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1206 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation of goods (GTA Services) - place of removal - period from 2009- 10 to 2013-14 - HELD THAT - Tribunal relying upon the Board Circular No.1065/2018 CX dated 8th June 2018 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE ST, ROHTAK 2014 (10) TMI 679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT , has held that the Appellants are eligible for the cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight. No question of law much less of any substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit for service tax on outward transportation of goods from 2009-10 to 2013-14. Detailed Analysis: The Tax Appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal denying Cenvat Credit for service tax on outward transportation of goods. The substantial question of law proposed by the Revenue was whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal of the respondent to avail Cenvat credit for the mentioned period. The controversy revolved around the denial of Cenvat Credit by the adjudicating authority, which was confirmed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kutch, disallowing Cenvat Credit and levying interest and penalty. The issue was whether the credit of GTA is available on input service up to the place of removal after 1st April 2008 as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, held that the Appellants were eligible for the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight. The Tribunal considered the Circular issued by the CBEC and various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to determine the "place of removal" and "point of sale" in the context of the case. The Tribunal found that until the goods were handed over to the buyer, the cost was borne by the Appellants, making the freight paid on outward transportation qualify as "Input Service." The Tribunal also addressed the issue of excise duty paid on freight being more than the Cenvat credit on outward GTA, deciding the matter on merit based on the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal further discussed the relevance of certain Circulars and judgments in determining the eligibility of the Appellants for Cenvat credit. It was noted that the law on the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court, and beneficial Circulars could not be withdrawn retrospectively. The Tribunal also considered the limitation aspect, stating that the issue of outward GTA had been under litigation since the introduction of the Cenvat Scheme, and no malafide intention could be attributed to the Appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential reliefs. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arose out of the impugned order. The decision was based on the findings of facts given by the Tribunal, relying on the Board Circular and relevant Supreme Court judgments. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
