TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal Remands Order on Cenvat Credit Appeal, Emphasizes Delivery Service Eligibility</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the order demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty. The case centered on ... CENVAT Credit - input services - outward GTA services availed for delivery of goods from factory gate to the buyer’s premises - place of removal - Circular:1065/2018-CX. Dated 08-June-2008 - HELD THAT:- An identical circumstances in appellant’s own case for a different period in SHRI KHEMISATI POLUSACKS PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -DAMAN [2021 (12) TMI 729 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the demand has been set aside and matter was remanded where it was held that the adjudicating authority can go into the facts and if it is found that the contract is of supply is on FOR basis and the ownership of the goods is transferred at the buyer’s premises then the benefit of the credit may be allowed. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for afresh adjudication - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on outward GTA services availed for delivery of goods from factory gate to the buyer's premises.Analysis:1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on GTA Services:- The appellant filed an appeal against the order demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty. The issue revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for outward GTA services used for delivering goods from the factory gate to the buyer's premises. The appellant argued that as per Circular:1065/2018-CX, the Cenvat credit for such services is admissible since they supply goods FOR destination, transferring ownership only at the buyer's premises.2. Interpretation of Input Service Definition:- The authorized representative, however, contended that post-amendment in the definition of input service from 2008, credit is only admissible up to the place of removal. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ultratech Cement to support this argument.3. Judicial Precedents and Tribunal Decision:- The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's own case where a similar matter was remanded for verification. Citing the case of M/S. Ultratech Cement, the Tribunal emphasized that the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on outward GTA services should be based on the provisions under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal acknowledged the settled law that beneficial Circulars cannot be withdrawn retrospectively, providing relief to the appellant.4. Decision and Remand:- Considering the appellant's claims and previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand. The adjudicating authority was directed to examine the facts, specifically focusing on whether the goods were delivered on a FOR basis and ownership transferred at the buyer's premises to determine the eligibility for Cenvat Credit.5. Final Order:- Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication based on the terms specified in the decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for further examination of the facts.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting Cenvat Credit rules in light of specific circumstances and legal precedents, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of facts to determine the admissibility of credits for services rendered in the delivery of goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
