9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 748 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - outward GTA services used for transportation of their finished goods from their factory to customer s premises - place of removal - period from October 2015 to September 2016 - HELD THAT - In the present matter, appellant has come forward with the documents /details i.e copy of purchase order, copies of invoices, copy of agreements, copy consignment notes, copy of certificate of chartered accountant. In view of the facts of the case, it is found that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal properly with these documents/ details and facts submitted by the Appellant before him in the impugned order. The case needs to be reconsidered by the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal a fresh after considering the said documents and vital facts - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for outward GTA services beyond the place of removal. - Interpretation of the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Admissibility of Cenvat Credit based on previous tribunal judgments and circulars. - Proper consideration of documents and facts by the Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Outward GTA Services: The appellant, a cement manufacturer, availed Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for outward GTA services beyond the place of removal from October 2015 to September 2016. The issue arose regarding whether such services qualified as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The revenue contended that services availed after the clearance of finished goods beyond the place of removal do not constitute an input service, leading to the recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the revenue appealed, resulting in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal. 2. Interpretation of "Input Service" Definition: The appellant argued that the issue was settled in their favor based on a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Gujarat High Court. They emphasized that the price charged from customers included freight charges, and the value of transportation was integral to the final product's value, preventing double taxation. The appellant also highlighted that the definition of input service includes services availed up to the place of removal, which, in their case, satisfied the conditions specified in relevant circulars. 3. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit Based on Precedents: Both parties relied on various judicial decisions to support their arguments. The appellant cited cases such as Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Lafarge India Ltd., emphasizing the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on outward transportation. Conversely, the revenue referred to cases like Mahale Engine Components India Pvt. Ltd. to support their position. 4. Proper Consideration of Documents and Facts: The Tribunal found that in the appellant's previous case, the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on outward freight was established based on submitted documents. Similarly, in the present matter, the appellant provided relevant documents like purchase orders, invoices, agreements, and a chartered accountant certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately address these documents and facts, necessitating a reconsideration of the case. 5. Judgment and Remand: Considering the facts, documents, circulars, and judgments relied upon by the appellant, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper consideration of all submitted materials before reaching a final determination. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further consideration.
|
