2019 (1) TMI 1227 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Revenue's Denial of Cenvat Credit on Service Tax for Outward Transportation

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I Versus Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. And Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-II.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant and allowed the appeal in favor of the Revenue regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit on ... CENVAT Credit - input services - Courier Agency Service/Goods Transport Agency Service for outward transportation of the finished goods for delivery at the customer’s premises - place of removal - Held that:- The issue arising out of the present appeals is no more open of any debate, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein the law is well settled that service tax paid on GTA service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises is not admissible for Cenvat benefit - credit cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Denial of Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid for outward transportation of goods - Interpretation of 'place of removal' - Applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules - Discrepancy in evidence for delivery at buyer's premises.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved the denial of Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid for outward transportation of goods. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the term 'place of removal' concerning the admissibility of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the case of M/s. Chevrolet sales India Pvt. Ltd., the appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the understanding that the goods delivered at the buyer's premises constituted the place of removal, making the service tax paid on outward transportation eligible for Cenvat Credit. However, in the case of M/s. Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of evidence demonstrating the delivery of goods at the buyer's premises, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid for transportation.The appellant argued that the cost of input service was included in the assessable value of the final product, justifying the availability of Cenvat Credit on the disputed service tax paid. Reference was made to precedents such as the case of CCE Vs. Jamuna Auto Industries Ltd. and circular no. 988/12/2014-Cx issued by the CBEC, supporting the allowance of service tax paid on GTA/Courier service for outward transportation as part of the price on which duty was discharged.On the contrary, the Revenue contended that recent judgments, including the one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., established that service tax paid on GTA service for transporting goods to the buyer's premises was not eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Revenue emphasized that the appellant should not be entitled to Cenvat Credit on the disputed taxable service for transportation of goods based on established legal principles.After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer open for debate, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case. The Tribunal aligned with the Supreme Court's position that service tax paid on GTA service for transporting goods to the buyer's premises was not admissible for Cenvat benefit. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant was dismissed, while the appeal in favor of the Revenue was allowed, in line with the legal precedents and established principles.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid for outward transportation of goods, emphasizing the significance of the 'place of removal' in determining the eligibility for Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, based on established legal interpretations and precedents, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue and dismissing the appellant's appeal.