2018 (5) TMI 1454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd - 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC) the issue is settled against the assessee. He submits that the demand is not sustainable on the ground that CENVAT Credit taken in respect of GTA only to the extent of 25% of the total gross value of transportation, which was paid by them, whereas 100% of GTA was added in the assessable value of the final product on which excess duty was paid. This amounts to reversal of credit availed in respect of outward GTA. Therefore, as a result of this exercise there is revenue neutral. Hence, the demand is not sustainable. He submits that the demand for extended period is time barred for the reason that during the relevant period prior to judgme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orrect, which need not to be disturbed. 3.1 He submits that the Circular was not correctly interpreted for the reason that w.e.f. 1.4.2008 definition of input service was amended whereby the term for 'place of removal' was changed 'upto place of removal'. Therefore, thereafter there is no question of any bona fide belief of the appellant. Hence, the demand is not time barred. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that during the relevant period, there was a clarification of Board vide Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007, according to which the credit on outward transportation was allowed when the following criteria are fulfilled: - (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lace. Therefore, in terms of the circular, appellant was very much entitled for the CENVAT Credit. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) held otherwise and negated the clarification of the Board. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had any mala fide intention. In fact appellant have acted and followed according to the Board's Circular, therefore, credit taken by them at that time was correct and legal. Therefore, the extended period was not invocable. Accordingly, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside. Demand for the normal period in respect of both the show-cause notices is upheld. 4.1 As per my above discussion, since appel....