9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1179 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA service - sale of goods by using the said transportation service is on FOR basis - HELD THAT - The documents submitted by the appellant which were also placed before the lower authority such as invoices, it clearly established that the freight was not separately charged from the customers the same was borne by the appellant therefore, it is the part and parcel of the invoice value and the excise duty was charged on the said value. As per this undisputed fact, it is held that the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit on GTA Services. The same issue on the identical fact has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and M/S SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1488 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that as the ownership of the goods remained with the Appellants till the goods reached to the customer s doorstep and the freight charges as well as damage (insurance) to the goods till destination were borne by the Appellant, they are eligible for the credit of service tax paid by them on outward freight. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Entitlement to cenvat credit on GTA service when the sale of goods is on FOR basis. Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to cenvat credit on GTA service when the sale of goods is on FOR basis. The appellant argued that the delivery of goods is up to the customer's premises and the sale is on FOR basis, with freight being borne by the appellant and not separately charged to customers. The appellant supported their position by referencing various judgments, including Ultratech Cement Ltd, Sanghi Industries Ltd, Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX, EMCO Ltd, Roofit Industries Ltd, and others. The appellant contended that cenvat credit is admissible based on these precedents. The Assistant Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, suggesting a denial of the appellant's claim for cenvat credit on GTA service. However, the Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. Upon review of the documents, including invoices showing that freight was not separately charged to customers and was borne by the appellant, the Member found that the appellant is indeed entitled to the cenvat credit on GTA services. This decision was supported by the fact that excise duty was charged on the invoice value, which included the freight cost borne by the appellant. The Member relied on previous decisions by the Tribunal in cases involving Ultratech Cements Limited and Sanghi Industries, which were upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Given the established legal precedent and the undisputed facts of the case, the Member concluded that the appellant is legally entitled to the cenvat credit in the present scenario. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 24.06.2022.
|
