9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 265 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credits - GTA service availed by them for outward transportation Held that - period of dispute in this case is prior to 01/04/2008, the date on which Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was amended by way of substitution of the word upto in place of the word from in clause (ii). till such amendment of the definition of input service given under Rule 2(l), transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of the final products from the place of removal stood included in the said definition notwithstanding the clarification issued by the Central Government through Circular dt. 23/8/2007. Accordingly, the appellants are eligible for the credits. appeals are allowed
Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credits for GTA service used in transportation of goods - Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Analysis: 1. The appeals challenged the denial of CENVAT credits totaling Rs.5,55,349/- and Rs.1,10,719/- for the period from April to August, 2006, related to GTA service for transporting final products. The appellate authority relied on previous Tribunal judgments to support the denial of credits for transportation to buyers' premises. 2. The General Manager argued that the credits were admissible based on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CCE&ST, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. and the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment in Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI. He also referenced Tribunal decisions and Circular No.97/8/2007-ST approved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The JDR acknowledged the Karnataka High Court's favorable judgment. 3. The Tribunal reviewed the judgments cited and noted that the key issue was whether transportation charges for clearing final products were considered 'input service' before the amendment to Rule 2(l) on 01/04/2008. The jurisdictional High Court held that, until the amendment, such transportation charges were included in the definition of 'input service,' making the appellants eligible for the credits. The lower appellate authority's contrary view was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing both appeals.
|
