Appeal allowed for CENVAT credit on outward transportation services as input service before April 2008

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit for outward transportation services. The tribunal held that prior to 01.04.2008, outward transportation from factory to customer premises qualified as input service under the definition, entitling the appellant to CENVAT credit of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. Following SC precedent in Andhra Sugars Ltd. and ABB Ltd. cases, the tribunal ruled that non-inclusion of transportation costs in assessable value does not deny CENVAT credit. The demand covering January 2005 to June 2007 was time-barred as the show cause notice issued on 02.12.2009 exceeded the normal one-year limitation period, with no suppression of facts established.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services for outward transportation.
2. Inclusion of transportation cost in the assessable value of goods.
3. Applicability of the extended period for demand.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation:
The Appellant, a manufacturer of transformer oil and aluminum conductor, availed GTA services for transporting goods from the factory to the customer's premises and paid service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The Appellant reversed the credit under protest due to ambiguity regarding its admissibility. A show cause notice dated 02.12.2009 demanded the wrongly availed CENVAT credit for the period January 2005 to June 2007, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, in its previous order dated 06.01.2020, remanded the case for fresh adjudication, which again resulted in denial of the credit. The present appeal challenges this order.

The Appellant argued that the GTA services for outward transportation qualify as 'input service' and cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which allowed CENVAT credit on outward transportation services prior to the amendment of Rule 2(l) of CCR in March 2008. The Tribunal agreed, noting that prior to 01.04.2008, the definition of 'input service' included services used for clearance of final products from the place of removal. Post-01.04.2008, only services used up to the place of removal were included. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Andhra Sugars Limited, Vasavadatta Cements Ltd., and Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd., which supported the Appellant's position.

2. Inclusion of transportation cost in the assessable value of goods:
The adjudicating and appellate authorities denied the CENVAT credit on the grounds that the sale was at the factory gate and the transportation cost was not included in the excise duty-paid price. However, the Tribunal, following the Larger Bench decision in ABB Limited, held that the non-inclusion of transportation costs in the assessable value does not disqualify the CENVAT credit. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's affirmation of this principle in Vasavadatta Cements Ltd., emphasizing that credit is admissible regardless of whether the transportation cost is included in the transaction value.

3. Applicability of the extended period for demand:
The demand related to the period January 2005 to June 2007, with the show cause notice issued on 02.12.2009, falling beyond the normal period of one year. The Tribunal found that the issue involved interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, with multiple judgments on the matter. It ruled that there was no mala fide intention or suppression of facts by the Appellant, thus the extended period could not apply.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on both merits and limitation grounds, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 05.02.2024.

---