2021 (9) TMI 942 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking permission for withdrawal of appeal - benefit of the Settlement Scheme already availed - CENVAT Credit - input service - outward transportation of goods delivered at the doorsteps of the buyers - equating the definition of input under section 2(k) and input services under section 2(l) especially when the expressions clearance of final products from the place the removal is conspicuous by its absence under the definition of 'input' - scope of various expressions - interpretation of statute - HELD THAT - The appellant is permitted to withdraw this Appeal, as they have availed the benefit of the Settlement Scheme. The Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn and the substantial questions of law are left open.

Issues:
1. Denial of input service credit for outward transportation of goods
2. Equating the definition of "input" and "input services"
3. Disallowance of outward transportation in relation to input service
4. Interpretation of the expression "clearance" and "from the place of removal"
5. Construing the expression "from" as "up to"
6. Narrow construction of the expression "clearance" and "business"
7. Embargo on providing input service benefit for finished goods
8. Failure to consider the Supreme Court ruling in a related case
9. Reliance on earlier decisions without considering relevant provisions
10. Unique expressions in the definition of input service
11. Relevance of "time of removal" in deciding payment of duty
12. Lack of consideration for the scheme of input services in a previous decision
13. Analysis from an input perspective rather than input service
14. Exclusions in the definition of input under Cenvat Credit Rules
15. Interpretation of "directly or indirectly" and "in or in relation to clearance"

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the denial of input service credit for outward transportation of goods, citing Circular No.97/6/2007-ST, which was not considered by the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal's decision to equate the definitions of "input" and "input services" raised concerns as the expression "clearance of final products from the place of removal" was absent in the definition of "input."

3. Disallowance of outward transportation as an input service conflicted with the definition under Section 2(l) of the Act, which extends the benefit to services used in the manufacture and clearance of final products.

4. The Tribunal's narrow interpretation of "clearance" and "from the place of removal" was criticized for overlooking the natural meaning, which includes transportation.

5. Construing "from" as "up to" by the Tribunal led to the exclusion of input service credit for outward transportation, which was deemed incorrect.

6. The Tribunal's limited construction of "clearance" and its exclusion of goods removal or transportation from the factory were deemed too narrow, especially considering the inclusive part of the definition.

7. The Tribunal's failure to recognize that the input service benefit claimed was only for finished goods removed from the factory, not for inputs or capital goods, was highlighted as an error.

8. The Tribunal was criticized for not considering the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case, which provided guidance on interpreting the inclusive part of the definition.

9. Reliance on earlier decisions without a comprehensive consideration of relevant provisions was deemed inappropriate, as it may have led to an incorrect interpretation.

10. The unique expressions in the definition of input service were emphasized, pointing out the absence of such terms in the definition of "input," which could impact the eligibility for credit.

11. The relevance of "time of removal" in deciding the payment of duty was questioned, as it was not a determining factor for the eligibility of Cenvat credit on input services.

12. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous decision that did not consider the scheme of input services was criticized, as it was not applicable to the current case.

13. The analysis focusing solely on the input perspective rather than input service was highlighted as a flaw, especially considering the exclusions in the definition of input.

14. The presence of exclusions in the definition of input under Cenvat Credit Rules, compared to the absence of such exclusions in the definition of input services, raised concerns about the consistency in interpretation.

15. The Tribunal's narrow interpretation of terms like "directly or indirectly" and "in or in relation to clearance" was deemed incorrect, leading to the exclusion of input service credit for outward transportation.

← Previous Next →