Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 45 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA Service - ‘FOR’ basis - Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that:- The appellants as per the contracts entered into between the parties, the appellants are supplying the goods on ‘FOR’ basis and are availing the credit on Service Tax paid on GTA services on the ground that it falls under the definition of ‘input service’ as contained in Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004 - in the purchase order itself the terms and conditions are on ‘FOR’ basis and ownership remains with the appellant till the goods are delivered to the buyer at the buyers’ premises and the cost of transit insurance and freight in respect of the goods sold are borne by the appellant. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - Held that:- The appellants have not suppressed any fact and they have been filing return regularly and has been showing the CENVAT credit availed on various input services including the GTA services - the Service Tax paid on GTA services is admissible as credit being input service and there were decisions in favor of the appellant regarding the same issue before the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is set aside as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Penalty - Held that:- The penalties imposed on the appellant are also not sustainable. Appeal disposed off.
|