Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of removal, the assesse would be eligible for credit if the place of removal is buyer s premises / depots. Following the same, the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY [ 2024 (7) TMI 680 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had remanded the matter. Accordingly, this issue requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to ascertain the place of removal in accordance with Large Bench decision of the Tribunal and also to consider whether the appellant is eligible for credit. Disallowance of credit alleging that the credit is availed beyond the time limit of 6 months / 1 year - HELD THAT:- In order to protect their right of credit, they were availing and re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ansportation of excisable goods from the factory to the buyer s premises. The Department was of the view that the said credit is not eligible for the reason that buyer s premises cannot be considered as the place of removal . Show cause notices for the different periods from December 2014 to October 2015 were issued proposing to disallow credit and to recover the same along with interest and for imposing penalties. 3. Apart from this, it was noticed by the Department that the appellant has availed credit in lump sum on 30.11.2015 to the tune of Rs. 2,63,04,759/- being the cenvat credit for the period September 2008 to August 2012. Similarly, the appellant had availed credit as lump sum on 31.01.2015 to the tune of Rs. 1,23,95,809/- for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llowing the credit to the tune of Rs. 2,63,04,759/- (taken on 30.11.2015) and Rs. 1,23,95,809/- (taken on 31.01.2015), it is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that these credits are actually eligible to the appellant. Prior to 1.4.2008, the definition of input services used the words from the place of removal . Later, this was amended on 1.4.2008 by substituting the words upto the place of removal . The issue as to whether the assessee is eligible for credit of service tax paid on freight charges upto the place of removal was contested by the appellant and various other assesses before the Tribunal. In the case of ABB Ltd. Vs CCE, ST., Bangalore - 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri.-LB) the Tribunal held that the credit is not eligible. Against such order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .07.2024 and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4.3 The Ld. Consultant put forward the arguments on the ground of limitation also. It is submitted that the issue is purely interpretational in nature. There were several litigations pending before various forums and the issue had also reached the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC). Later, the Board had issued Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX. Dt. 08.06.2018 by which it was clarified that if the place of removal is the buyer s premises / depots, the credit is eligible. This would show that the issue was interpretational in nature and therefore there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. 4.4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Tribunal and also to consider whether the appellant is eligible for credit. 8. The second issue is disallowance of credit alleging that the credit is availed beyond the time limit of 6 months / 1 year. The Ld. Consultant has explained that the issue as to whether the eligibility of credit for outward transportation of goods was litigated by them before the Tribunal as well as the Hon ble High Court. During the disputed period, they adopted the practice of availing the credit and thereafter reversing the credit on the same day. This was done by the appellant for the reason that Department was of the view that they are not eligible for credit. In order to protect their right of credit, they were availing and reversing the credit to avoi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates