2014 (3) TMI 479 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit on GTA service - input services - delivery upto the place of customer - Held that - place of delivery is the customer s works and the freight charges was also included. - freight was paid by the appellant - The adjudicating authority observed that the insurance policy has not mentioned in particular transportation to a buyer and which is only open and general in nature - There is no force on such finding - There is no requirement that each consignment would cover separate policy. In other words, it is required that insurance policy must be in the name of appellant to claim the benefit of policy in respect of transportation of goods. - the goods were delivered at the customer s premises. - there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit on GTA service. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on service tax for outward transportation of goods under GTA service.
2. Determination of the place of removal for availing CENVAT credit.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "input service" under CENVAT Credit Rules.
4. Applicability of case laws in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on service tax for outward transportation of goods under GTA service. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting further review.

2. The key issue revolved around determining the place of removal for availing CENVAT credit. The appellant argued that the customer's premises constituted the place of removal, supported by purchase orders, insurance policies, and invoices. The Revenue contended that the factory gate was the place of removal, citing precedents and the Tribunal's decisions in similar cases.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "input service" under CENVAT Credit Rules post-amendment on 21.03.2008. It clarified that the credit eligibility extends to services used directly or indirectly in the manufacture and clearance of final products up to the place of removal. The appellant's documentation indicated delivery at the customer's works, with freight charges included, supporting their claim for CENVAT credit on GTA service.

4. In assessing the applicability of case laws, the Tribunal distinguished the circumstances of previous cases cited by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were indeed delivered at the customer's premises based on the evidence provided by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of CENVAT credit on GTA service was unwarranted, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarified the criteria for availing CENVAT credit on service tax for outward transportation of goods under GTA service, emphasizing the importance of defining the place of removal accurately. By analyzing the definition of "input service" and considering relevant case laws, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the significance of proper documentation and factual evidence in establishing credit eligibility.