2018 (2) TMI 1394 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – input services – GTA Service – reverse charge mechanism – Held that: – The definition of “input service” was amended vide N/N. 10/2008-CE(N.T.), dated 01.03.2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008. The effect of amendment was that the Phrase “from the place of removal” was substituted by “upto the place of removal”. As per the amended provisions of definition of “input service”, service tax paid on freight for transportation of goods “upto the place of removal” should only merit consideration as input service – the freight paid by the appellant from 1.4.2008 to 10.07.2014 should merit consideration as “input service” and service tax paid thereon should be eligible for cenvat credit – credit allowed.
–
With regard to the period after 11.07.2014, though the “place of removal” was specifically defined in Rule 2(qa) of the CCR 2004, but on analysis of such definition Clause, the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.10.014 has clarified that the place,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r ( Judicial ) Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate for the appellant Shri K. Podar, DR for the respondent ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty The issue involved in these appeals are identical. Accordingly, with consent of both the sides, the same are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of Dry Battery Cells, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For delivery of the goods at buyer s premises, the appellants avails the services of goods transport agency and pays outward freight on such transportation. In the capacity of recipient of such service, the appellant discharges service tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The appellant avails cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods. In these cases, the Department issued show cause notices for the period April, 2005 to March, 2016 seeking disallowan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the adjudication orders were upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders 28.04.2017 and 7.9.2017. Being dis-satisfied with the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that as per the agreement entered into between the appellant and its buyers, the place of delivery of the goods is at the factory of the buyer and the appellant incurred the freight and insurance element for such transportation of the goods for delivery at the buyers premises. He further submits that considering the amount of freight as a part of assessable value, the appellant discharged appropriate central excise duty liability. Thus, it is his submission that freight paid for transportation of the goods for delivery at the buyer s premises should be considered as the place of removal for the purpose of consideration as input service, for availment of cenvat benefit. To s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e impugned order. He further submits that the appellant has only submitted the sample copy of the purchase orders and invoices in relation to one buyer and the same cannot be considered as the proper documents for deciding the issues involved in the bunch of appeals, involving different buyers. Thus, he submits that for verification of the factual aspect, the matter should go back to the Original Authority. 5. Heard both the sides and examined the case records. 6. The term input service has been defined under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said definition underwent amendments from time to time. For the period from August, 2005 to March, 2008, the definition of input service allowed cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods from the place of removal. In this case, since the appellant had removed the goods from its factory, for delivery at the buyer s premises, such factory gate should be considered as the place of removal for the purpose of considera
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sued by one of the buyers, M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. shows that the delivery of the goods was on FOR destination basis. As per the terms of the purchase order, the appellant had issued invoice, showing all inclusive rate (including freight) and paid the central excise duty on such assessable value. Since the goods were delivered at the buyer s premises, the place of delivery should merit consideration as input service for the purpose of extending the cenvat benefit of service tax paid on the outward freight amount by the appellant. Therefore, the freight paid by the appellant from 1.4.2008 to 10.07.2014 should merit consideration as input service and service tax paid thereon should be eligible for cenvat credit. 8. With regard to the period after 11.07.2014, though the place of removal was specifically defined in Rule 2(qa) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, but on analysis of such definition Clause, the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.10.014 has clarified that the place, where sales ha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
issued by few numbers of buyers, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the Original Authority for verification of the purchase orders/invoices in respect of the buyers, to whom the goods were sold by the appellant on FOR destination basis. If the Original Authority is satisfied that the ownership /title of the goods passed on by the appellant at its buyer s premises, the service tax paid on the freight element should be extended to the appellant as cenvat benefit. Since the period involved in these appeals are very old, the Original Authority should complete the adjudication proceedings, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the impugned order are set aside in respect of denial of cenvt credit upto 1.4.2008. With regard to the period thereafter, the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority for verification of documents/records and for pas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =