TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.08.2008 as it is also adverted to the above decisions referred in the question of law. However, the Revenue did not have any occasion to examine whether or not the conditions precedent provided in the aforesaid Circular of CBEC are satisfied by the Assessee or not to avail of its benefit. We are not deciding the appropriate interpretation of 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the facts of the present case, as the issue of the applicability of the Circular to the facts is still an unresolved issue - all the issues, both on merits i.e. interpretation of 2(l) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as well as applicability of the CBEC circular are left open for consideration of the Assessing Officer who would pass an appealable order after follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004. The respondent inter-alia took credit of duty in respect of service tax paid on the GTS (Goods Transport Service) from its place of removal i.e. Factory gate/warehouse to the destination of its customers during the period of February 2005 to March, 2006. (B) The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the respondent Assessee's appeal before it by following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CCE Vs. ABB Ltd. Reported in 2011(23) STR 517 and the Gujrat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Polywoven Private Ltd., reported in 2012(25) STR 4. Both the High Courts held that the Assessee is entitled to benefit of Cenvat Credit paid on GTS services in taking its goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the aforesaid 3 conditions, the Circular states that credit of service tax paid on transportation upto customer's destination from the place of removal where the sales take place would be available to the seller of the goods. In-fact, the Punjab and Hariyana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2009(14) STR 3 relied upon the aforesaid circular and held that it is not open to the Revenue to deny service tax credit of tax paid on GTS services for carrying goods from the place of removal (Factory gate/warehouse) to the customer's destination where the sales take place. 5. In the present facts, it is an admitted position before us that the respondent - Assessee had responded to the notices demanding service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In the above view, as the respondent Assessee seeks to place reliance upon the CBEC Circular, it would be appropriate as suggested by the parties before us, that the impugned order dated 19 July, 2013 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Further, the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. 8. At this stage, we are not deciding the appropriate interpretation of 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the facts of the present case, as the issue of the applicability of the Circular to the facts is still an unresolved issue. Needless to state all the issues, both on merits i.e. interpretation of 2(l) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as well as applicability of the CBEC circular are left open for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
