2019 (4) TMI 1329 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - outward freight - place of removal - period from March, 2005 to December, 2007 - Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - Facts of this case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VERSUS M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. 2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that from 01.04.2008, the CENVAT credit is available only upto the place of removal whereas as per the amended Rule from the place of removal which has to be upto either the place of depot or the place of customer, as the case may be. Credit has to be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of credit of service tax towards outward freight under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Allegation of wrong availment of credit of service tax.
- Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by Adjudicating Authority.
- Appeal by the appellant assessee against the adjudication order.
- Decision of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the appellant.
- Department's appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Commissioner's decision.
- Interpretation of the term "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Application of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum vs. Vasavadatta Cements Limited.
- Analysis of the Full Bench of CESTAT in M/s. ABB Limited case and its interpretation of the definition of "input service."
- Clarification on the meaning of "from the place of removal" in the context of availing Cenvat credit.
- Impact of the amendment to the Rule effective from 1-4-2008 on the availment of Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The case involved the availing of credit of service tax towards outward freight under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to ?22,28,041/- during a specific period. The Adjudicating Authority alleged the wrong availment of credit, resulting in the confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty. However, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant assessee. Subsequently, the Department appealed before the Tribunal, challenging the Commissioner's decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the term "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in light of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum vs. Vasavadatta Cements Limited. The Tribunal referred to the Full Bench of CESTAT in M/s. ABB Limited case, which provided insights into the definition of "input service." It was highlighted that the definition of input service is divided into two parts, with specific attention to the term "from the place of removal."

The Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of "from the place of removal" is crucial in determining the eligibility for Cenvat credit. It was clarified that tax paid on transportation of final products from the place of removal up to a certain point, whether a depot or customer, should be allowed for credit. The Tribunal also noted the impact of an amendment to the Rule from 1-4-2008, which substituted "from the place of removal" with "upto the place of removal," limiting the availment of Cenvat credit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) based on the interpretation of the term "input service" and the specific context of transportation charges related to the clearance of final products. By following the Supreme Court's ruling and the Full Bench's interpretation, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the appellant assessee.