2014 (5) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed, remand for credit reconsideration. Delay condoned, documentary evidence required.

The appeal was allowed, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the admissibility of cenvat credit on outward ... CENVAT Credit - GTA services - Held that:- credit on Outward Transportation is admissible provided the delivery of finished goods by the appellant is contracted under FOR destination to be made at the door steps of the buyers. It is also observed from the grounds of appeal that similar credit admissibility has been clarified by CBCE vide circular dated 23.8.2007 that, to be admissible subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. However, appellants has to establish their case before the Adjudicating Authority with documentary evidence that the finished goods are contracted to be supplied on FOR destination basis at the door steps of buyers. As such verifications can only be done by the Adjudicating Authority therefore, OIA dated 25.9.2013 passed by the first appellate authority is required to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Admissibility of cenvat credit for GTA services availed by the appellant and condonation of a 20-day delay in filing the appeal.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of cenvat credit for GTA services availed from Nov. 2010 to March 2011 and the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was not condoned by the first Appellate Authority. The appellant's representative argued that the delay was due to the advocate being out of station. The learned advocate cited a case where GTA credit was allowed for goods delivered at the buyers' doorsteps.The Revenue representative contended that cenvat credit on outward GTA services is not admissible as the services were availed beyond the place of removal. The Adjudicating Authority and the first Appellate Authority's orders were defended by the Revenue representative.After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was condoned as the reasons for the delay were satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit on outward transportation, judicial pronouncements and a CBCE circular clarified that credit is admissible if finished goods are contracted to be delivered on FOR destination basis at the buyers' doorsteps. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for further consideration, requiring the appellant to provide documentary evidence to establish their case.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for further verification and consideration based on the conditions specified by the CBCE circular and judicial pronouncements.Judgement:The appeal was allowed by remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo consideration regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit on outward transportation services.