2018 (11) TMI 460 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – outward transportation of goods upto the buyer’s premises – Held that:- The issue has attained finality as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises was not admissible – credit not allowed.
–
Penalty – Held that:- There were several litigations pending before various High Courts and that the matter had reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and being an interpretational, the penalty is unjustified.
–
Appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nfirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the appellant has the responsibility to deliver the goods at the customers premises. Even as per the purchase order, the place of removal is the customers premises and the transaction is on FOR basis. Therefore, the input service is not confined to the premises within the factory gate and would therefore be extended to the buyer s premises. He relied upon the Board s Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007. He also submitted that in the recent circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 8.6.2018, the Board has clarified that if the goods are to be deliv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
3.2008. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is whether the appellants are eligible for credit on outward transportation of goods upto the buyer s premises. The issue has attained finality as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra). Although the ld. counsel has referred to various circulars of the Board, since the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court is binding, I am of the view that credit is not admissible. 6. The ld. counsel has argued that the issue was interpretational and had reached to the Hon ble Apex Court and therefore the penalty imposed is unwarranted. Taking note of the fact that there were several litigations pending before various High Courts and that the matter had reached the Ho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =