9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 256 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA Service used for the purpose of outward transportation of goods up to the customer s place - place of removal - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT holding that GTA Service used for the purpose of outward transportation of goods up to the customer s place was not covered within the ambit of amended Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 and also charged applicable interest and levied applicable penalty. Penalty - HELD THAT - Revenue has not challenged the findings of the First Appellate Authority in the impugned orders as to the deletion of penalty and hence, no interference is called for on this. It is for the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the facts afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit for GTA Outward Transportation Services. 2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Applicability of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. 4. Consideration of subsequent notifications and judicial decisions. 5. Adjudication of eligibility for credit by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. Remand for fresh verification and examination of the claim of the assessee. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Castings for Automobiles and Motor Vehicle Parts, faced disallowance of CENVAT Credit for GTA Outward Transportation Services post an amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's claim citing the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. The appellant contended that the issue was misinterpreted and referred to subsequent notifications and judicial decisions. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the case of M/s. Bata India Ltd. emphasized examining the factual background before applying legal positions. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to re-examine the facts and decide the eligibility of the appellant for credit based on the precedents and guidelines provided. The appellant's plea for credit was supported by their claim of delivery on 'FOR destination basis,' which was not the central issue in the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to thoroughly evaluate the factual matrix before applying legal principles. The decision highlighted the importance of analyzing the modus operandi of the appellant and the establishment of Regional Distribution Centers (RDCs) and Wholesale Stock Distribution Centers (WSDCs) to determine the point of sale. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the factual background and examine whether the goods were removed to RDCs without a sale, emphasizing a comprehensive review of the facts before applying legal interpretations. The judgment emphasized the need for re-adjudication based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to conduct a fresh assessment considering all relevant legal precedents and guidelines. The order highlighted the importance of examining the facts in detail and applying the law accordingly, leaving all contentions open for further consideration. The appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with no interference in the deletion of penalties by the First Appellate Authority.
|
