9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 683 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input service - GTA service, for delivery on FOR basis - Reliance on CA Certificate - Board Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, in principle this Court agrees that credit is admissible if terms are FOR basis and goods are delivered to the buyer at the place of buyer rather than place of manufacture relying on the following the case of M/S SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1488 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . This court finds that reliance on the Chartered Accountant certificate by the appellant which, inter-alia, gives opinion on legal issues like property getting appropriated/transferred, risk and loss in terms of insurance policy or that freight charges were not integral part of the goods are not the matters on which Chartered Accountant has expertise to pronounce. These issues, inter-alia, involve interpretation of law on the terms of contract. Without Chartered Accountant pronouncing on record his legal expertise such certificate lacks credence, as it is not based on accounts alone. Same is therefore, not acceptable. This court remands matter back to Commissioner (Appeals) with pronouncement that in case of FOR basis freight on road and till the time ownership and title gets passed to buyer, in principle is admissible - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The limited issue in this case is availing credit on GTA service for delivery on FOR basis. The main contention is whether the terms of the contract support the credit availability of GTA service. Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad heard arguments from both sides regarding the availing of credit on GTA service for delivery on FOR basis. The appellant argued that GTA service was part of the supply made by them on FOR basis, citing Board Circular No. 97/8/2007 and various case laws to support their position. On the other hand, the department supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove that the goods were delivered on FOR basis. The Court agreed in principle that credit is admissible if the terms are FOR basis and goods are delivered to the buyer at the place of the buyer, not the place of manufacture. They referenced specific case laws to support this stance. However, they found that the issue was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on evidence, including a Chartered Accountant certificate. The certificate stated conditions under which credit was availed on freight outward, but the Court noted that the legal aspects mentioned in the certificate were beyond the expertise of a Chartered Accountant and required proper legal opinion and evidence. As a result, the Court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the instruction that credit on FOR basis freight is admissible in principle, but factual scrutiny is needed to determine if goods were actually transferred on FOR basis. The appellant was given the opportunity to produce contracts and proper legal opinion or other evidence to support their claim, excluding the Chartered Accountant's opinion on legal aspects. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.
|
