2018 (2) TMI 212 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – GTA Services for outward transportation services – whether credit is admissible on outward transportation services upto buyer’s premises when delivered on F.O.R. basis? – Held that: – the issue has been settled by the decision in the case of Commissioner Versus Ellora Time Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 567 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that outward transportation would be an input service as covered in the expression ‘means’ part of the definition, it would be difficult to exclude such service on the basis of any interpretation that may be offered of the later portion of the definition which is couched in the expression ‘includes’.
–
However, the documents requires reconsiderati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
alongwith interest and also for imposing penalty. After adjudication, the original authority disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,06,887/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 53,444/-. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri. M. Kannan submitted that the appellant has availed the transportation services for clearance of their finished products upto the buyer s premises and the delivery of the goods was on F.O.R basis. The issue whether credit is admissible on the service tax paid on GTA Services for outward transportation of finished products upto the buyer s premises, when the delivery is on F.O.R basis is settled by v
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Central Excise, Meerut-I 2016 (334) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) h. Commissioner of C.Ex., Dehradun Vs Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (45) S.T.R. 198 (Tri. – Del.) 4. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the Board Circular No.999/6/2015-CX dated 28.2.2015 has clarified that the assessee would be eligible for credit on GTA services for outward transportation if the ownership of the goods remain with the assesse till the delivery of the goods at the buyers premises. That the appellant had furnished necessary documents to establish that the goods were delivered on F.O.R. basis. That the same has not been considered by the authorities below. 5. The Ld.AR, Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =