9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ‘input service’ on which CENVAT credit could be claimed for a period after 31-3-2008 - service so used is not coming within the ambit of the definition of ‘input service’ for the period after 31-3-2008 - appellant is not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the GTA service used by them for transportation of their final product from the place of removal for any period after 31-3-2008 - appellant cannot claim CENVAT credit for the period after 31-3-2008 and therefore Appeal No. E/361/2010 can only be partly allowed - amount of CENVAT credit admissible to the appellant has to be requantified and the interest payable by them will also have to be redetermined - matter remanded to the original authority - E/360-361/2010 - 335-336/2012 - Dated:- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at transportation of the final products from place of removal stood included in the definition of input service as it stood prior to 1-4-2008. The learned Consultant, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order in so far as the CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1-4-2008 is concerned. We have heard the learned Commissioner (AR) also, who has acknowledged the decision of the Hon ble High Court as applicable to the period prior to 1-4-2008. 3. In the above scenario, we hold that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit on GTA service which was used for outward transportation of their final product from the place of removal to customers premises prior to 1-4-2008. In the result, the first appeal has to be allowed, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on GTA service for the period beyond 31-3-2008. 5. Per contra, the learned Commissioner (AR), himself also referring to the terms of the definition of input service , argues that the amendment of the definition with effect from 1-4-2008 is crucial and has to be given effect to. It is argued that, for a manufacturer of excisable goods to claim CENVAT Credit on GTA service used for transportation of such goods, he can claim the benefit only up to the place of removal and not beyond that. Contextually, he refers to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2012 (275) E.L.T. 136 (Tri.-Del.)], a referral order passed by one of us sitting singly. The learned Commissioner, (AR) claims support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of final product, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance of final product up to the place of removal is an input service on which CENVAT credit could be claimed for a period after 31-3-2008. The expression up to the place of removal has a clear and absolute meaning beyond the pale of doubt. In the present case, the final product was cleared from the place of removal (whether it be factory or depot) by the appellant by making use of GTA service. The service so used is not coming within the ambit of the definition of input service for the period after 31-3-2008. In our mind, we are clear that the appellant is not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the GTA service used by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
