9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 530 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - place of removal - Outward GTA service - Extended period of Limitation - Held that - Supreme Court in the case of Ultra tech Cement Ltd 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDI on the issue of Place of Removal as well as on the eligibility of the Cenvat credit on outward GTA prescribed some guide lines for field formation for deciding the case of cenvat credit on outward GTA. Since the issue involved is mixed question of law and facts, the facts first to be verified that whether the GTA service in each case is up to the place of removal or beyond place of removal. Therefore, without verifying these facts any judgment of Supreme Court cannot be applied in straight away - matter needs to be remitted back to the adjudicating authority who shall decide the matter fresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Whether cenvat credit in respect of Outward GTA service is available to the appellant or not. Analysis: The appellant argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in Ultra tech Cement Ltd was significant, but the CBEC's Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX clarified that cenvat credit on GTA must be decided based on individual case facts and various Supreme Court judgments. Referring to a previous Tribunal case, the appellant stressed that the matter should be re-evaluated based on the place of removal. The appellant highlighted that the circular emphasized not issuing demands for an extended period. The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order and emphasized the Supreme Court's amendment of the definition of Input Service in 2008, shifting from "From place of removal" to "Up to place of removal." The representative argued that the 2007 Board Circular was no longer applicable, citing the 2018 Circular reaffirming the parameters set in 2007. According to the Revenue, post-2008 amendment, credit on Outward GTA is only available up to the place of removal, settling the issue conclusively. After considering both sides' arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the Board's guidelines on the 'Place of Removal' issue and eligibility of Cenvat credit on outward GTA. The Tribunal observed that previous cases were remanded to verify whether GTA services were utilized up to or beyond the place of removal. Given the mixed question of law and facts, the Tribunal emphasized the need to first establish the facts regarding the GTA services in each case before applying Supreme Court judgments directly. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in line with the 2018 Board Circular and previous Tribunal observations. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for remand, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing before a new adjudication order is passed.
|
