2018 (10) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur (for short 'the Adjudicating Authority') be restored. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the impugned services namely Goods Transport Agency Services in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat credit of service tax during the period from July, 2014 to March, 2015 for outward transportation of cement are eligible 'input services' within the meaning of 'input service' and whether upon determination of the 'phrase' i.e. "place of removal" defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit on the GTA service correctly or not?" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the words, "clearance of final products from the place of removal" appearing in the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2004 prior to 01.03.2008 were amended by Notification No. 10/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2008 by substituting the same with the words, "clearance of final products upto the place of removal". Thus, if any ambiguity, which was there in respect of GTA Services upto the place of removal, the same has already been removed by the Government and therefore, the aforesaid services taken upto the place of removal can only be covered under the definition of 'input service'. The Tribunal has failed to notice this change in the definition while ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal has decided the issue against the Revenue not only in this matter but also in the matter arising out of previous assessment year wherein the main demand was set aside, the question of penalty would therefore not arise for consideration. Learned counsel argued that as per the law that was prevalent at the time when the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, the respondent-assessee was not required to satisfy the demand and acted throughout that impression, therefore, there was no question of any penalty to be paid on that. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant rejoined and submitted that the penalty is consequential as the issue raised in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. In case t....