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>Appellant disputes denial of input service credit for outward transportation under Circular citing narrow interpretation of definitions.</h1> <h3>M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai</h3> M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), The Customs, Excise and ... Issues:1. Denial of input service credit for outward transportation of goods2. Equating the definition of 'input' and 'input services'3. Disallowance of outward transportation in relation to input service4. Interpretation of the expression 'clearance' and 'from the place of removal'5. Construing the expression 'from' as 'up to'6. Narrow construction of the expression 'clearance' and 'business'7. Embargo on providing input service benefit for finished goods8. Failure to consider the Supreme Court ruling in a related case9. Reliance on earlier decisions without considering relevant provisions10. Unique expressions in the definition of input service11. Relevance of 'time of removal' in deciding payment of duty12. Lack of consideration for the scheme of input services in a previous decision13. Analysis from an input perspective rather than input service14. Exclusions in the definition of input under Cenvat Credit Rules15. Interpretation of 'directly or indirectly' and 'in or in relation to clearance'Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the denial of input service credit for outward transportation of goods, citing Circular No.97/6/2007-ST, which was not considered by the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal's decision to equate the definitions of 'input' and 'input services' raised concerns as the expression 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' was absent in the definition of 'input.'3. Disallowance of outward transportation as an input service conflicted with the definition under Section 2(l) of the Act, which extends the benefit to services used in the manufacture and clearance of final products.4. The Tribunal's narrow interpretation of 'clearance' and 'from the place of removal' was criticized for overlooking the natural meaning, which includes transportation.5. Construing 'from' as 'up to' by the Tribunal led to the exclusion of input service credit for outward transportation, which was deemed incorrect.6. The Tribunal's limited construction of 'clearance' and its exclusion of goods removal or transportation from the factory were deemed too narrow, especially considering the inclusive part of the definition.7. The Tribunal's failure to recognize that the input service benefit claimed was only for finished goods removed from the factory, not for inputs or capital goods, was highlighted as an error.8. The Tribunal was criticized for not considering the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case, which provided guidance on interpreting the inclusive part of the definition.9. Reliance on earlier decisions without a comprehensive consideration of relevant provisions was deemed inappropriate, as it may have led to an incorrect interpretation.10. The unique expressions in the definition of input service were emphasized, pointing out the absence of such terms in the definition of 'input,' which could impact the eligibility for credit.11. The relevance of 'time of removal' in deciding the payment of duty was questioned, as it was not a determining factor for the eligibility of Cenvat credit on input services.12. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous decision that did not consider the scheme of input services was criticized, as it was not applicable to the current case.13. The analysis focusing solely on the input perspective rather than input service was highlighted as a flaw, especially considering the exclusions in the definition of input.14. The presence of exclusions in the definition of input under Cenvat Credit Rules, compared to the absence of such exclusions in the definition of input services, raised concerns about the consistency in interpretation.15. The Tribunal's narrow interpretation of terms like 'directly or indirectly' and 'in or in relation to clearance' was deemed incorrect, leading to the exclusion of input service credit for outward transportation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
