2013 (4) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on GTA services - Whether the supply made by the appellants is on FOR destination basis and whether the freight element and insurance has been included in the overall price - Held that - Since all the purchase orders of the appellants are not available, the same are required to be verified with the conditions of the purchase order and those prescribed by CBEC under circular No.97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.07. The case is therefore remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for necessary verification for deciding the admissibility of cenvat credit in remand proceedings. Service tax credit admissibility relating to maintenance of garden - Held that - Appellant has made out a strong case because as per the Gujarat Pollution Control Board permission dated 16.03.06 the appellant was required to maintain a garden which is therefore an obligation under the relevant pollution control law and cenvat credit with respect to the services used for maintaining the garden will be admissible and is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the supply made is on FOR destination basis and if freight element and insurance are included in the overall price.
2. Admissibility of service tax credit for services related to maintenance of garden.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around whether the supply made by the appellants is on FOR destination basis and if the freight element and insurance are part of the overall price. The appellant's advocate argued that the purchase orders clearly state supplies are made against FOR destination. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) only mentioned one purchase order where insurance was to be borne by the buyers. The respondent's representative contended that not all purchase orders are available and suggested sending the case back to lower authorities for verification based on a CBEC circular.

2. Moving on to the second issue, the admissibility of service tax credit for services related to garden maintenance was discussed. The appellant highlighted the obligation to maintain green cover as per the Gujarat Pollution Control Board's permission. Citing a Karnataka High Court judgment, the advocate argued that the credit should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong case as they were required by law to maintain a garden as per the pollution control regulations, making the cenvat credit for gardening services admissible.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further verification regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit on GTA services. Since all purchase orders were not available, verification was deemed necessary to determine compliance with conditions set by CBEC under a specific circular. The appeal was decided based on the issues discussed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.