9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1851 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Goods Transport Services - outward transportation of goods - Held that - Issue is decided by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT in favour of the Respondent. It is seen that the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta 2013 (12) TMI 1025 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT granted interim stay. - respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court and Hon ble Karnataka High Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on Goods Transport Services for clearance of final products. - Interpretation of place of removal for eligibility of credit. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the denial of cenvat credit on Goods Transport Services used for the clearance of final products during a specific period. The Revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the adjudication orders. The Revenue argued that credit on outward transportation of goods should be eligible at the factory gate, citing precedents from the Hon'ble High Courts of Calcutta and Karnataka, as well as a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, the respondent's Advocate referred to a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, supporting the view that the place of removal extends up to the customers' place before a certain date. The respondent also highlighted a distinction made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit on inputs or input services in Service Tax. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, noted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the respondent by the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat. Additionally, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta had granted interim stay in a related matter. Based on the precedents and decisions cited, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment was delivered by Mr. P.K. Das at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, with representation from Ms. Anoli Patwa for the Assessee and Shri K. Sivakumar for the Revenue.
|
