9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1089 - AT - Central ExciseITC - output transportation services - whether the respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit on outward transportation services when the goods are sold on FOR destination or not? - place of removal - Held that - Admittedly, when goods are sold on FOR basis, the place of removal is the destination of the goods. Therefore, upto that place, whatever services availed by the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Admittedly, in this case, goods have been sold on FOR destination basis and transportation charges have been paid by the respondent themselves. Goods were insured and ownership of the goods remained with the respondent till delivery of the goods were made to the customer. In these circumstances, I find that decision in this case of Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013 (12) TMI 1025 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT relied on by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case to say that services have been availed upto the place of removal of the goods. Assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Entitlement to Cenvat credit on outward transportation services when goods are sold on FOR destination basis. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD concerned the entitlement of Cenvat credit on outward transportation services when goods are sold on FOR destination basis. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing input service credit on output transportation services for the period from October 2007 to June 2012. The respondent, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, sold goods on FOR destination basis, with ownership and insurance of goods until delivery to the customer. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent complied with Circular No.97/8/2007 and was entitled to Cenvat credit, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that post-April 1, 2008, Cenvat credit on outward transportation services for finished goods was not permissible as it lacked nexus with manufacturing activity. They contended that transportation beyond the factory did not qualify for credit, asserting that transportation services were for the customer, not the respondent. The Revenue cited precedents like CCE, Kolkata Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. and ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore to support their position. Additionally, they highlighted the ongoing appeal before the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court's decision in ABB Ltd.'s case. In response, the respondent's counsel supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the place of removal in FOR destination sales was the customer's location, justifying their entitlement to Cenvat credit. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal focused on whether the respondent could claim Cenvat credit when goods were sold on FOR basis. It was established that in FOR sales, the place of removal aligned with the destination of goods, allowing credit for services availed until that point. Given the circumstances of the case, where goods were sold on FOR basis and transportation charges were borne by the respondent until delivery, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's cited precedent was inapplicable, affirming the respondent's entitlement to Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld it, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on May 3, 2016, by Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.
|
