Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Denial of Cenvat credit - GTA services - whether the demand only on the ground that the factory is considered as a place of removal and any outward transportation beyond the factory is not entitled for credit as per the definition of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, justified? - time bar - Held that: - Cenvat credit of ₹ 6,03,113/- in respect of clearances to SEZ (paid and appropriated) and Cenvat credit of ₹ 24,34,593/- in r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

artly allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 56581 of 2013 - Final Order No. 54600/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G. Natarajan, Kartik Jindal and Joseph K. Antony, Advocates for the appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The present appeal is against order dated 05/12/2012 of Commissioner, Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to March 2011 and the total credit denied is ₹ 99,21,728/-. The impugned order confirmed the demand only on the ground that the factory is considered as a place of removal and any outward transportation beyond the factory is not entitled for credit as per the definition of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the term place of removal as defined in Section 4 (3) (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntest the denial of credit of ₹ 6,03,113/- in respect of clearances to SEZ units. The said amount has been paid and appropriated. Similarly, with reference to a credit of ₹ 24,34,593/- it is submitted that the freight advance paid to the transporters on behalf of the customers are shown in the excise invoice. Hence, the appellant is not disputing the disallowance of such credits on merits. 3. The demand is also contested on time bar. It is pleaded that the credit was availed by the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ever, the eligibility of credit was justified on other grounds. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that there could be no bonafide belief in respect of place of removal and the eligibility of credit to the appellants. He supported the demand for extended period. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that impugned order held that the goods were sold at the factory gate and as such the credit on GTA services for outward t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arances to depot and consignment agents appointed by the appellant. Apparently in these two situations there is no sale at the factory gate and, hence, the place of removal cannot be factory gate. We note that in order to support their contention regarding clearances to depots as well as consignment agents they have produced a certificate dated 04/3/2013 from a Chartered Accountant indicating yearwise split up details of clearances to depots, consignment agents, SEZ units, buyer s premises and e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

outward freight is that sale and transfer of property in goods should be in place other than factory gate. In such situation the freight up to the place of such removal/sale is eligible. The same has been clarified in Board Circular dated 20/10/2014. We further note that the amendment carried out w.e.f. 01/4/2008 has no impact to decide the present appeal. In the said amendment in the definition of input service, the words from the place of removal were replaced by up to the place of removal . T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mers on sale on FOR basis, though the appellants did not contest the case on merit as they have shown the freight in the excise invoice are not considered for the purpose of payment of excise duty, they are contesting the same on the question of time bar. They pleaded that there is a bonafide belief that the said credit was available under the category of activities relating to business. We are unable to accept such proposition. Admittedly, freight advance has been paid to the transporters on be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version