Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (7) TMI 99

encies availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises was not admissible to the Appellant - demand upheld. - Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Vide the impugned Show Cause Notice the demand for refunding the Cenvat Credit already availed by the Appellant for the period with effect from 2011 till 2015 has been claimed. The Show Cause Notice is of January 2016. Apparently, it is beyond the period of one year for the demand till the year 2014 - Since the fact of availment of such irregular credit was not disclosed to the Department, the Commissioner has rightly held it to be a clear case of suppression of relevant facts warranting invocation of extending period and imposition of mandatory penalty under S .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the demand as was raised by the said Show Cause Notice. Revenue being aggrieved, filed the appeal thereof and the impugned order confirming the demand of Show Cause Notice has been filed and the Appellant is here before us. We have heard both the parties at length. It is impressed upon for the Appellant that the Appellant has been taking the Cenvat Credit on the outward freight in accordance of the definition of place of removal as given in the Act and since the place where excisable goods sold can be the place where the property or goods can process from buyer to seller and the sale culminates only after the goods reached the destination then it will be deemed to be place of removal. Accordingly, the freight rate for transporting the good .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

liable to refund thereof along with the interest. With respect to the plea of limitation, it is submitted that there is apparent suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Department has rightly invoked Section 78 of the Act. The order under challenged has rightly been announced. The appeal is, accordingly, prayed to be rejected. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record of this appeal, we are of the considered opinion as follows: (i) The core issue involved in the present case is with regard to the admissibility, or otherwise, of Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to the buyer s premises, treating the said service as the input serv .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Cenvat Credit. This stands finally decided in Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2016 (Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum v. M/s Vasavadatta Cements Ltd.) vide judgment dated January 17, 2018. However, vide amendment carried out in the aforesaid Rules in the year 2008, which became effective from March 1, 2008, the word from is replaced by the word upto . Thus, it is only upto the place of removal that service is treated as input service. This amendment has changed the entire scenario. The benefit which was admissible even beyond the place of removal now gets terminated at the place of removal and doors to the Cenvat credit of input tax paid gets closed at that place. This credit cannot travel therefrom. It becomes clear from the bare reading of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e credit. Once the clearances have taken place, the question of granting input services stage credit does not arise. Transportation is an entirely different activity from manufacture and this position remains settled by the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Tyre International - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), Indian Oxygen Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) and Baroda Electric Meters - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). The post removal transport of manufactured goods is not an input for the manufacturer. Similarly, in the case of M/s Ultratech Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Bhatnagar - 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tribunal), it was held that after the final products are cleared from the place of removal, there will be no scope of subsequent .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||