TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Manufacturer wins appeal for CENVAT credit on transportation service pre-2008</h1> <h3>Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST- Mumbai.</h3> The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, successfully appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on outward transportation service availed ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Goods Transport Agency Service - place of removal - period prior to 01/04/2008 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant has received the service prior to 01/04/2008 and availed the credit in November 2009. As, at the time of receiving the service, there was no bar on availment of CENVAT credit on the service in question. In the circumstances, CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the appellant. It is a fact on record that during the period when the service was availed there was no bar for entitlement of CENVAT credit on ‘outward transportation service’. The appellant has rightly availed CENVAT credit on the service in question in November 2009 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on 'Goods Transport Agency Service' availed prior to 01/04/2008.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on outward transportation service availed before 01/04/2008. The Revenue argued that post 1st April 2008, the definition of 'input service' changed, rendering the appellant ineligible for CENVAT credit on outward transportation service. A show cause notice was issued, and the credit was denied. However, the appellant contended that there was no bar on availing CENVAT credit when the service was received. The Tribunal noted that at the time of service receipt, there was no restriction on claiming CENVAT credit for 'outward transportation service'. Therefore, it was held that the appellant rightfully availed the credit in November 2009. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
