9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 635 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - place of removal - Outward Transportation of Goods (GTA Services) upto the buyer s premises - main grounds raised by the appellants is that the Board s circular dated 08.06.2018 has clarified with respect to what is to be the place of removal - Held that - On a perusal of the Circular, it is found that the general principles concerning place of removal as elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur Vs M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT have been brought out. The judgment in COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT basically concerns itself with includibility of certain costs incurred the delivery of the goods at the buyer s point, whereas, on the other hand Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is confined to eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of transportation undertaken by the seller/manufacturer till the buyer s premises. The appellants should be given an opportunity to establish which is the place of removal for them and then look into the eligibility of credit on GTA services availed for outward transportation upto the buyer s premises in the light of the judgments of M/s. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. and the Board s Circular dated 08.06.2018 - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Denial of Cenvat credit on Outward Transportation of Goods (GTA Services) up to the buyer's premises. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on Outward Transportation of Goods The appellants contended that denial of Cenvat credit on Outward Transportation of Goods was incorrect, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. The department supported the denial, referring to the settled law based on the same case. The Board's circular clarified that credit is not eligible up to the buyer's premises. The appellants argued that the place of removal should be determined first as per the decision in M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. and then consider the credit eligibility. The Tribunal noted that various cases were remanded to determine the place of removal post the circular. The Bench unanimously decided to remand the appeals to establish the place of removal and reconsider the credit eligibility based on the mentioned judgments and circular. Issue 2: Interpretation of Board's Circular The Tribunal analyzed the Board's circular dated 08.06.2018, which clarified the place of removal principles based on the Supreme Court's decisions. The circular emphasized that Cenvat credit on GTA Services is not eligible beyond the place of removal, as per the amendment in the definition of "input service." The Tribunal differentiated between the Roofit Industries Ltd. judgment, focusing on assessable value, and the Ultratech Cements Ltd. case, which addressed Cenvat credit eligibility for transportation to the buyer's premises. The Tribunal highlighted that the Apex Court's amendment in the Cenvat Credit Rules emphasized the place of removal up to the buyer's premises for credit eligibility. Issue 3: Application of Precedents and Circular The appellants argued that the definition of "place of removal" in the Cenvat Credit Rules was already existing in the Central Excise Act, and the Roofit Industries Ltd. decision should guide the determination of the place of removal. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of the circular in subsequent cases remanded for place of removal determination. Considering the binding nature of circulars on Revenue, the Tribunal supported the appellants' plea to follow precedents where matters were remanded for adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded all appeals related to Cenvat credit eligibility for Outward Transportation Services to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to reconsider the issue afresh in light of the judgments in M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd., and the Board's Circular dated 08.06.2018. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand.
|
