Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 469 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - GTA Services - place of removal - requirement of ISD registration - case of department is that the GTA credit could be availed only upto the place of removal and not from place of removal, the Head Office could not distribute credit without having ISD registration, the credit was to be proportionately distributed to all the units - extended period of limitation - Admissibility of credit on GTA services upto 1.4.2008 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra on merits itself in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises was not admissible to the respondent - Therefore, following the same, it is held that the credit on GTA services from the place of removal upto 1.4.2008 was rightly admissible to the Appellant. Issue of distribution of credit prior to 1.4.2016 - HELD THAT:- Rule 7 of CCR provided mechanism to distribute the credit and it was only after amendment made in 2016, the condition for proportionate distribution was inserted. This issue has also been settled by the Tribunal in the case of PIRAMAL GLASS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -SURAT-I [2021 (9) TMI 1198 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]) that prior to 1.4.2016 there was no need to proportionately distribute credit to all the units. Therefore, the credit was rightly distributed to the appellant by its Head Office during the period in dispute. Distribution of credit by the Head Office without obtaining ISD registration - HELD THAT:- The issue involved being of general in nature, the law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that credit cannot be denied on the basis of non-registration of Head Office as ISD - the impugned order denying credit on the basis of non- registration of Head Office as ISD is not sustainable. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the appeals are allowed on merits itself, there otherwise remains no need to look into the issue of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|