9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 424 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - services of outward transportation - denial of credit on the ground that these services have been availed beyond the factory premises and therefore, the said services are not covered under the main or the inclusive part of the input service - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the case is no longer res integra - The apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT has held that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer s premises was not admissible to the respondent. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid for outward transportation of goods. 2. Interpretation of "place of removal" under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Applicability of amended definitions and rules regarding input services for CENVAT Credit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid for outward transportation of goods: The appellant, a manufacturing unit, availed CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid for the transportation of goods from their factory to the buyer's premises. The Department disallowed this credit, arguing that the services were availed beyond the factory premises and thus did not qualify as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Interpretation of "place of removal" under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The core issue revolved around the definition of "place of removal." Initially, Rule 2(l) included services used for clearance of final products from the place of removal. However, an amendment effective from March 1, 2008, changed the wording from "from the place of removal" to "upto the place of removal." This amendment was pivotal, as it restricted the admissibility of CENVAT Credit to services used only up to the place of removal. 3. Applicability of amended definitions and rules regarding input services for CENVAT Credit: The Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T. Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. was cited, which clarified that post-amendment, the benefit of CENVAT Credit does not extend beyond the place of removal. The Court emphasized that the amended Rule 2(l) explicitly limits the credit to services used up to the place of removal, thus excluding outward transportation to the buyer's premises. The appellant argued that their case met the conditions outlined in the Board's Circular dated August 23, 2007, which defined "place of removal" based on ownership, risk during transit, and inclusion of freight charges in the price. However, this Circular pertained to the unamended definition of input service and could not be applied post-amendment. The Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT Credit for the outward transportation of goods from the place of removal to the buyer's premises, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the adjudicating and appellate authorities were affirmed. Conclusion: The judgment reaffirmed that post-amendment, CENVAT Credit on service tax for outward transportation beyond the place of removal is not permissible. The interpretation of "place of removal" and the amended rules were pivotal in determining the ineligibility of the claimed credit. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the disallowance of CENVAT Credit by the lower authorities.
|
