2014 (4) TMI 4 - AT - Central Excise

Court allows service tax credit on outward GTA services up to buyer's place.

CCE, Panchkula Versus Jamuna Auto Industries Limited

The Revenue's appeal against the credit of service tax on outward GTA services was dismissed. The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing ... Entitlement to CENVAT Credit - GTA services - Revenue contends that respondents have wrongly availed the credit on the services of GTA for outward transportation of goods beyond place of removal - Held that:- freight is a part of the price as this fact is not in dispute. The Board therefore, issued a Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007 - However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the Service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods occurred at the said place - Decided against Revenue. Issues: Revenue's appeal against credit of service tax on outward GTA services.Analysis:1. Issue: Revenue's appeal against the credit of service tax on outward GTA services.- Details: The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the order where the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondents to claim credit for service tax paid on outward GTA services up to the place of the buyer during the period from April 2009 to November 2009.2. Grounds for Appeal:- Details: The Revenue contended that the respondents wrongly availed credit for GTA services beyond the place of removal, which, according to Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, does not qualify as an input service. The crux of the argument was that the admissibility of GTA services for outward transportation depends on establishing the place of removal. In this case, since the goods were sold at the factory gate, the place of removal was deemed to be the factory gate, making the respondents ineligible for credit on outward transportation post-factory clearance.3. Respondents' Defense:- Details: The respondents argued that they sold goods to the original manufacturer with freight costs included in the price, and the agreement specified delivery at the buyer's place. They contended that since freight was part of the price on which duty was paid, denying credit would be unjustified. They also cited Circular No.97/8/2007 and a Tribunal decision in support of their position.4. Circular Interpretation:- Details: The circular highlighted situations where the sale was considered to occur at the destination point, with ownership and risk remaining with the seller until delivery at the buyer's doorstep, and freight charges being integral to the price. In such cases, credit for service tax on transportation up to the sale point was deemed admissible if it could be proven that the sale and property transfer occurred at that location.5. Judgment:- Details: The judge found that since the freight was a component of the price and the circular supported the respondents' position, there was no flaw in the lower order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the respondents' entitlement to credit for service tax paid on outward GTA services up to the buyer's place as per the agreement.