9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 473 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - GTA service - credit on the basis of ISD invoice issued by the Gajambuja Cement Muldwaraka the contention of the Revenue is that they are a separate unit - services were used beyond the place of removal - Held that - goods transport agency service used for transportation of finished goods upto the service place of delivery of the buyer would be eligible for input service credit. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT upheld the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal 2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT BANGALORE and restricted credit upto 1.3.2008. Asstt. Commissioner of Service Tax Bhavnagar Division has issued certificate of Registration ISD to M/s GujAmbuja Cements Muldwaraka (a unit of Gujarat Ambuja Cements) Ambujanagar Dist. Junagadh. In the present appellant M/s Amuja Cement is also unit of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Hence the appellant had rightly availed the credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by the GajAmbuja Cement Muldwaraka. Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corpn Ltd. vs CCE 2013 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that definition under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2004 is not restricted to input services used only for procurement and inward transportation of inputs. It was also more so as this broad and comprehensive meaning had to be read with Rule 2(i). In the present case there is no material available that the services were not used in relation to the business of the appellant. So we do not find any reason to deny input service credit. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on GTA services. 2. Denial of cenvat credit based on ISD invoices. 3. Denial of credit on other services used beyond the place of removal. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of cenvat credit on GTA services The appellant, a cement manufacturer, was denied cenvat credit on GTA services. The appellant argued citing the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case that denial of cenvat credit on GTA services cannot be sustained. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of ABB Ltd vs Commissioner and held that GTA services used for transportation of finished goods up to the place of delivery of the buyer are eligible for input service credit. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in a similar case, thereby ruling in favor of allowing cenvat credit on GTA services. Consequently, the denial of cenvat credit on GTA services was not upheld. Issue 2: Denial of cenvat credit based on ISD invoices The denial of cenvat credit based on ISD invoices issued by another unit of the appellant, GajAmbuja Cement Muldwaraka, was contested. The Revenue argued that GajAmbuja Cement Muldwaraka is a separate unit and cannot issue ISD invoices to the appellant. However, upon examination of the records, it was found that both GajAmbuja Cement Muldwaraka and the appellant were units of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Castrol India Ltd and held that the denial of cenvat credit based on ISD invoices issued by GajAmbuja Cement Muldwaraka was not sustainable. The appellant was deemed to have rightly availed the credit on the basis of ISD invoices, and the denial of cenvat credit on this issue was set aside. Issue 3: Denial of credit on other services used beyond the place of removal The adjudicating authority had denied credit on certain services, alleging that they were used beyond the place of removal. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the services were not used in relation to the appellant's business. Therefore, the denial of input service credit on these services was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by overturning the denial of cenvat credit on GTA services, ISD invoices, and other services used beyond the place of removal, based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.
|
