2014 (1) TMI 1424 - HC - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - input services - transportation of the finished goods for delivery at the destination - Held that - By the amendment made with effect from 1st April, 2008 substituting the word from by the word upto all that has been done is to clarify the issue. Neither the services rendered to the customer for the purpose of delivering the goods at the destination was covered by the definition of input service prior to 1st April, 2008, nor is the same covered after 1st April, 2008. If the definition provided in Section 2(l)(ii) is read as a whole, it would appear that outward transportation charges or taxes paid in regard thereto is claimable only with regard to those transports which were made from one place of removal to another place of removal - Considering that the Tribunal has merely disposed of the matter following the judgment in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex & S.T.,LTU, Bangalore vs. ABB Limited 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-hearing on merits - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal's order
- Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' prior to 2008 amendment
- Applicability of service tax credit for transportation of finished goods
- Consideration of circular issued by the Board
- Discrepancies in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal's decision that reversed the Commissioner's order confirming a demand for service tax credit and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal's decision was based on a precedent involving ABB Limited. The appellant, represented by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, argued that the Karnataka High Court's judgment was incorrect and should not have been followed. He highlighted the definition of 'input service' pre-2008 amendment, emphasizing that services related to the delivery of finished products to buyers were not considered services in the manufacture of goods. The appellant contended that the circular issued by the Board provided concessions only under specific conditions, which were not met in this case as per the respondent-assessee's reply to the show cause notice.

The Court scrutinized the Karnataka High Court's views and found them unacceptable for various reasons. Firstly, the High Court's opinion on outward transport services being covered within the definition of 'input service' lacked clear reasoning. Secondly, the High Court's interpretation of the 'means' and 'includes' aspects of the definition was deemed flawed by the Court. The High Court's reasoning that transportation charges for clearance of final products were included in the definition of input service until the 2008 amendment was also challenged. The Court clarified that the 2008 amendment did not alter the scope of claimable outward transportation charges, which were limited to transports between different places of removal.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for re-hearing on its merits. The judgment underscores the importance of a precise interpretation of legal definitions and the application of tax credit rules in the context of service-related expenses in the manufacturing process.