9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2288 - AT - Service TaxDenial of cenvat credit - GTA Services - Held that - Tribunal s order relates to the period March 2005 to May 2007. Ld. A.R. contended that they have filed a C.M.A before Hon ble High Court, Madras against the above final order of Tribunal in C.M.A.No.3274/2013. Both sides submit that the Tribunal order is not stayed as no stay is granted and the C.M.A. is still pending before Hon ble High Court, Madras. Further I find that place of removal has been amended w.e.f. 1.3.2008 and the present case relates to the period prior to the amendment. Therefore, by following Tribunal s Division Bench decision in the appellant s own case, the appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on GTA outward transportation. - impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the denial of cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods. The appeals arose from a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a demand for ineligible cenvat credit during the periods June 2007 to December 2007. The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's own case, a similar issue had been decided in their favor in a previous Final Order. This previous decision had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, indicating that prior to 1.4.2008, credit was available for services utilized for removal of goods from the place of removal. As the matter was no longer res integra, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal also considered the amendment regarding the place of removal w.e.f. 1.3.2008 and concluded that the appellants were eligible for credit of service tax paid on GTA outward transportation for the period prior to the amendment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed as the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants based on the precedent and legal provisions. The stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
