2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT

CENVAT Credit - Input services in relation to GTA - transportation of their final product from their premises to customers premises - scope of the restriction "upto to place of removal" - Rule 2(l)(ii) of the CC Rules, 2004 - validity of CBEC vide its Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated August 23, 2007 issued before the amendment for the issues post amendment - Held that:- In the first instance, it needs to be kept in mind that Board’s Circular dated August 23, 2007 was issued in clarification of the definition of ‘input service’ as existed on that date i.e. it related to unamended definition. - However, the important aspect of the matter is that Cenvat Credit is permissible in respect of ‘input service’ and the Circular relates to the unamended regime. Therefore, it cannot be applied after amendment in the definition of ‘input service’ which brought about a total change.

Now, the definition of ‘place of removal’ and the conditions which are to be satisfied have to be in the context of ‘upto’ the place of removal. It is this amendment which has made the entire difference. That aspect is not dealt with in the said Board’s circular, nor it could be.

Secondly, if such a circular is made applicable even in respect of post amendment cases, it would be violative of Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and such a situation cannot be countenanced.

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold 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. - Decided in favor of Revenue.