9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 610 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - service tax paid on outward goods transportation up to the premises of the buyer - place of removal - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. The definition of input service under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is quite comprehensive and encompasses every activity /service used in the provision of output services. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, GUNTUR VERSUS M/S. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 285 - SUPREME COURT held that outbound transportation from the place of removal gets covered by the definition of input service . Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on outward goods transportation up to the premises of the buyer. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on outward goods transportation up to the buyer's premises. The initial Order-in-Original confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. However, CESTAT remanded the matter back for reconsideration, and subsequently, the Hon'ble Madras High Court remanded the matter to CESTAT. The appellant's counsel cited various decisions to support their argument, stating that the issue is no longer res integra for the period from June 2005 to September 2006. The definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was deemed comprehensive by the tribunal, covering every activity/service used in providing output services. They referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CC, CE & ST Guntur Vs Andhra Sugars Ltd., where outbound transportation from the place of removal was considered an "input service." The tribunal, relying on previous decisions, including Andhra Sugars Ltd. and Bata India Ltd. Vs CCCE Chennai-III, concluded that the impugned order needed to be set aside. They allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. The judgment was pronounced on 13.06.2022 by the tribunal members, Ms. Sulekha Beevi and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar.
|
