https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365860 The Tribunal allowed Revenue's appeal, denying the respondent CENVAT benefit on the GTA service for transporting goods to the buyer's premises. The decision was based on the Supreme Court ruling that transportation services up to the place of removal qualify as input services, with the factory gate being deemed the place of removal in this case. Despite recognizing the issue's complexity, the Tribunal concluded that penalties were unwarranted, aligning its decision with the legal interpretation established by the Supreme Court precedent in the Ultratech Cement Ltd. case. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:26:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365860 The Tribunal allowed Revenue's appeal, denying the respondent CENVAT benefit on the GTA service for transporting goods to the buyer's premises. The decision was based on the Supreme Court ruling that transportation services up to the place of removal qualify as input services, with the factory gate being deemed the place of removal in this case. Despite recognizing the issue's complexity, the Tribunal concluded that penalties were unwarranted, aligning its decision with the legal interpretation established by the Supreme Court precedent in the Ultratech Cement Ltd. case. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365860