2022 (8) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is having three manufacturing units at Nasik, Sikandrabad and Howrah and Head Office at Kolkata. The Appellant was receiving services of Goods Transport Agency (in short GTA) at the head office for removal of goods from respective factories to its various depots. Though the Head Office was registered with the Service Tax Department since 2007 and they were distributing the credit to their units, they were not having ISD registration which was granted later on in 2016. Since the Head Office was making payment in respect of all input services received at the Head Office and inward and outward GTA services at/to factories/depots, the Head Office passed on entire credit to its Howrah factory, the Appellant herein. Due returns were also filed wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved was prior to 1.4.2008 when the definition of input service was amended by restricting the credit on GTA services from the place of removal to to the place of removal. He submitted that the issue has otherwise been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2018(9)GSTL337(SC) followed by the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2019(366)ELT891(Tri. Chd.). Therefore, the credit was rightly admissible to the appellant. 2.6 As regards invocation of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that prior to 1.4.2016 there was no mandatory condition under Rule 7 of CCR to distribute the credit proportionatel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant and still the show cause notice was issued in 2010. As regards the subsequent show cause notice issued on 02.05.2014, apart from other submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2006(197)ELT465(SC) that extended period cannot be invoked in subsequent show cause notice. 3. The Ld.Departmental Representative re-iterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. As regard the admissibility of credit on GTA services upto 1.4.2008, the issue is no more res integra on merits itself in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Supra) and decision....