9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OR sales i.e. delivery upto the factory gate of the customers, which, according to Revenue, was beyond the place of removal? 3. The appellant is a Government-owned corporation in the Central Public Sector Enterprise under the Ministry of Mines (India), Government of India. During the period from October, 2007 to October, 2010 they availed Cenvat Credit on GTA Services for their depot transfers and sale on FOR basis, which according to them, was available as per CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007-ST, dated 23.8.2007. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 8.6.2011 was issued to the Appellant, proposing denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 82,52,201/- on the aforesaid GTA services, since as per department it was not covered under the scope of input service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Cenvat credit proposed for denial is an input service as it is incurred upto the place of removal i.e. customers premises and the same is also covered under the amended provision of Rule 2(l) ibid w.e.f. 1.3.2008. He further submits that in view of the facts of this case, the place of removal will be the customer's premises and the input service tax credit for GTA service availed will be eligible as it is upto the place of removal i.e. customer's premises. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur II; 2018(10)GSTL 43 (Tri- Delhi) in which the Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. Prior to the amendment of 2008, in the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) ibid, the words used were 'outward transportation from the place of removal' but vide notification No.10/2008-CE (NT), dated 1.3.2008 the aforesaid definition of 'input service' was amended by substituting the same with the words, 'outward transportation upto the place of removal'. Although the pre-amended definition of 'input service' as contained in Rule 2(l) ibid uses the expression from the place of removal, however, after the amended w.e.f. 1.3.2008 the word 'from' is replaced by the word 'upto' and from the amended definition it the clear that only upto the place of removal the service is treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid submission is hereby rejected. My view is further strengthen by a recent decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on a similar issue in the matter of Ultra Tech Cement Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Tirupati; 2019(28) GSTL 84 (Tri.-Hyd.). Now I will take up the issue of extended period of limitation as raised by learned counsel. So far as the circular dated 8.6.2018 is concerned, the same is not applicable as it is only applicable on the new show cause notices. Still I agree with the submission of learned counsel regarding the extended period, as I am of the view that in a way the issue about GTA service can be said to be settled only after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultratech Cement (supra) and before that there were di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
