2018 (8) TMI 1573 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – input services – GTA Service – place of removal – Held that:- The definition of input service underwent an amendment from 1.4.2008 where the words “from place of removal” was substituted with “upto place of removal” – the GTA services upto the buyer’s premises would not be eligible after 1.4.2008 – appellant would not be eligible for credit on outward transport upto buyers premises after 1.4.2008.
–
CENVAT credit – inward transportation – time limitation – Held that:- The department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the appellants have evaded duty by suppressing facts. Hence, appeal succeeds on limitation – appellant is liable to pay duty for the two months period beyond the normal period. – However, that being an interpretational issue, the penalty in respect of these months cannot sustain.
–
Appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. E/42488/2017 – Final Order No. 41719/2018 – Dated:- 5-6-2018 – Ms. Sulek
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
before as well as after 1.4.2008. The issue with regard to the eligibility of credit on GTA service used for transportation of goods from the place of removal to buyer s premises has been considered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. – 2018 (9) GSTL 33 (SC). He submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that prior to 1.4.2008, an assessee would be eligible for credit of GTA service upto the buyer s premises whereas after 1.4.2008, the same would not be eligible pursuant to the amendment. It was also argued by him that the department has raised the demand disallowing the credit on inward transportation also. The definition of input service is very much clear that all the services which are used in or in relation to manufacture are eligible for credit. The inward transportation was used for bringing the inputs into the factory and therefore such activities being directly related to the activity of manufacturing, credit cannot
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ute, the decision laid down in the case of ABB Ltd. as well as Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. was in force and therefore the appellant had availed the credit on the bonafide belief that they are eligible for credit. Only after the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra), the same has been held to be not eligible. The argument of the ld. Counsel is not without substance. The issue was in litigation and being an interpretational issue, it cannot be said that the appellants have suppressed facts to evade payment of duty. The department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the appellants have evaded duty by suppressing facts. Hence, appeal succeeds on limitation. The appellant is liable to pay duty for the two months period beyond the normal period. However, that being an interpretational issue, the penalty in respect of these months cannot sustain. 7. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the demand on the g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =