2015 (3) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Chennai grants waiver of pre-deposit for Cenvat credit, stresses documentation

M/s. Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, presided over by Shri Pradip Kumar Das, granted the waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. ... Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of CENVAT Credit - GTA service - Inclusion of freight charges in basic price - Held that:- Applicant produced Invoice copy No.S001448, dated 09.08.2011 raised on KSCSC, Ernakulam and in the body of the invoice, it has been mentioned as ‘Total assessable value including transport charges’. The Adjudicating authority also examined the Purchase Order No.9991, dated 19.07.2011 produced by the assessee, which includes the basic price [excluding VAT per quintal]. The Board Circular stipulates that the freight charges were an integral part of the price of the goods. The Adjudicating authority rejected the contention of the applicant on the ground that they have not produced the Tender copy. Prima facie, we find from the invoice and purchase order that the freight was included in the value. The applicant has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit of entire amount. Accordingly, pre-deposit of duty along with interest is waived till disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted. Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit denied by Adjudicating authority for GTA service.2. Dispute regarding inclusion of freight charges in the basic price.3. Compliance with conditions of Board's Circular No. 97/8/2007.4. Evidence required for service rendered on F.O.R. basis.Analysis:The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, delivered by Shri Pradip Kumar Das, addressed the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,54,787/- for the period Mar.'09 to May.'12. The applicant, engaged in the manufacturing of various products, faced denial of Cenvat credit on GTA service by the Adjudicating authority, arguing that the GTA service was provided from the factory gate to the customer's premises. The applicant contended that the freight charges were included in the basic price, supported by documents like the invoice and purchase order. The Adjudicating authority, however, emphasized the lack of evidence regarding the service being on F.O.R. basis and non-production of the Tender copy for scrutiny of terms and conditions.Upon reviewing the records and submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed included the freight charges in the value of goods, as evident from the invoice and purchase order provided. The Adjudicating authority's rejection based on the absence of the Tender copy was countered by the Tribunal's observation of a strong prima facie case made by the applicant for the waiver of the pre-deposit amount. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty along with interest until the appeal's final disposal, thereby allowing the stay application.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with appropriate documentation and meeting the conditions stipulated by relevant circulars. The Tribunal's decision to grant the waiver was based on the prima facie evidence presented by the applicant, emphasizing the inclusion of freight charges in the value of goods and the lack of conclusive evidence from the Revenue's side regarding the service terms. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of thorough documentation and compliance with regulatory requirements in tax-related disputes before the appellate authorities.