Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 187 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Business Auxiliary Services - Banking & Financial Services - Commission on sales - Security Services - Stock Brocks - place of removal - period from January 2005 to November 2007 - HELD THAT:- There are force in the submission of the Ld.Counsel. On a careful reading of the definition of input service, it can be observed that it was never the intent of the legislature to give it a restricted meaning. Master Circular was issued clarifying the procedural issues relating to Service Tax being Circular No.97/8/2007- S.T. dated 23-Aug-2007 holding that This circular aims to consolidate the procedural issues relating to service tax, including those relating to availment and utilization of Cenvat credit. This circular supersedes all previous circulars/clarifications/instructions issued on these subjects. It is, however, clarified that this circular is intended only to clarify the scope of the Act and the rules, and therefore, in the event of any inadvertent inconsistency or contradiction between this circular and the provisions of the Act or the rules, the latter shall prevail. It is, therefore, clear that for a manufacture/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory gate sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the ‘place of removal’ does not pose much problem - In such cases, the credit of the eservice tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place. There are no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|