9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er new case could not have been made out at the appellate stage being violative of the principles of natural justice. Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation from the factory to the buyer s premises - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is clearly an interpretational one and the Board Circular dated 8 June 2018 also acknowledges the same - The period involved in the present proceeding is also prior to the contrary interpretation rendered in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] denying such credit - credit is allowed. Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that the department was not aware of the factum of the Appellant taking Cenvat credit of service tax on outward transportation of finished goods to buyer s premises having served a Notice dated 25 June 2008 for the prior period. Therefore, the extended period is clearly not available to the revenue - Consequently, invocation of the extended period and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is set aside - The demand on this aspect has to be confined to the normal period of limitation alone. Denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Cenvat Credit Rules ( CCR ). It was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the Appellant that the disputed credit of ₹ 32,86,580/- is not attributable to outward transportation of finished goods to the buyer s premises alone as alleged in the Notice but comprises of the following: Sl. No. Particulars Amount of Credit 1 Credit availed on transportation of raw material and fuel to the factory 2,65,730/- 2 Credit availed on outward transportation of finished goods to Depot 1,80,677/- 3 Credit availed on outward transportation of finished goods to Customer/buyer s premises 3,26,055/- 4 Credit availed on input services other than GTA 3,39,673/- 5 Credit availed on ISD invoices 22,35,066/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the underlying transportation charges was not at all in dispute as against the contrary allegations in the OIA and the same is also evident from the sample calculation sheets along with tax payment challans in support thereof. (d) With respect to denial of Cenvat credit of service tax incurred on outward transportation of goods from the factory to the premises of the buyer, it is claimed that the supplies were delivered supplies and the cost of transportation stood included in the transaction value of finished goods on which excise duty was discharged. Moreover, the finished goods supplied were subject to inspection and approval at the premises of the buyer and thus, the property in goods stood transferred only at the premises of the buyer/customer in terms of Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act. Therefore, the place of removal was the buyer s premises and service tax paid on outward transportation upto the place of removal was eligible for credit, drawing support from the Circulars dated 23 August 2007 and 20 October 2014 as also the following decisions. (i) CC Vs. Ultratech Cement Tax Case No. 53 of 2017 (Chhattishgarh High Court) and the Order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Unilever Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Kanpur 2017 (3) TMI 867 CESTAT Allahabad; (ii) M/s. POBC (Division of Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West 2019 (2) TMI 5784 CESTAT Mumbai 4. The Ld. D/R invites attention to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement 2018 (9) GSTL 337 to contend that on merits the issue as regards eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer s premises has already been decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In respect of denial of credit on other grounds, the ld. D/R supports and re-iterates the findings in the OIA . 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. I find that the Notice proceeds on the basis that the alleged irregular credit of ₹ 32,86,580/- pertains entirely in respect of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer s premises. However, the OIA has accepted that the Cenvat credit involved on this score is confined to ₹ 3,26,055/- only and that rest of the disputed cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone. Since the Notice was served on 26 December 2013, the demand for the period December 2012 aggregating ₹ 7,727/- as per the C.A. certificate is upheld along with interest thereon. 7. The demand confirmed on account of the other four issues is even otherwise unsustainable, as discussed hereinafter. In so far as the credit of service tax on inward transportation of inputs to the factory premises and outward transportation of finished goods upto the depots are concerned, I am in agreement with the contentions of the Appellant that these are specifically covered by the inclusive limb of the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of the CCR. The sample monthly calculation sheets and tax payment challans clearly refute the findings in the OIA as regards lack of any evidence as to payment of service tax on GTA services. Besides, such finding in the OIA also turns the entire edifice of the Notice upside down as payment of service tax in respect of the services on which credit stood availed was not at all the subject matter of any dispute. In so far as the denial of credit on invoices addressed to the Head Office is concerned, I find that such invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
