M/s Shakti Hormann Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 663 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/30718/2018 – A/31559/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
None for the Appellant.
Shri Bhanu Kiran, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao
This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0181-17-18-CE, dated 19.01.2018. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. However, it is found that the issue falls in a narrow compass and hence can be decided even in the absence of representation from t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e tax paid is not eligible for credit. The appellant contested the demand on merits. After following due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant challenged this order before the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the credit was admissible prior to 01.04.2008 when the limitation of credit on input services 'up to the place of removal' was introduced. He also challenged the demand on the ground of limitation of time. The First Appellate Authority upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal on the following grounds,
i) The definition of input service under CENVAT Credit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d that credit on transportation of goods from place of removal upto buyers premises is available on the ground that service tax being a consumption of service tax as owned by the customer.
iv) The notice was issued on 08.06.2010 covering the period April, 2006 to June, 2007 and is therefore hit by limitation as there is no evidence that the credit has been availed by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
3. I have considered the facts of the case and arguments made by Learned Departmental Representative. The short point to be decided is whether CENVAT credit on input services is admissible on GTA services for outward transportation of goods from factory to the premises of the customers p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =