9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facility of cenvat credit on inputs / capital goods / input services and utilized the same for payment of excise duty on clearances of the finished products. 2. On verification of accounts of the appellant, it was noticed by the Department that they have availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on freight charges incurred for outward transportation of excisable goods from the factory to the buyer's premises. The Department was of the view that the said credit is not eligible for the reason that buyer's premises cannot be considered as 'the place of removal'. Show cause notices for the different periods from December 2014 to October 2015 were issued proposing to disallow credit and to recover the same along with interest and for impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / depots, the assessee would be eligible for credit. In the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 40835/2024 dt. 10.07.2024 (Appeal E/42590/2018), the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the place of removal. It is prayed that this issue may be considered accordingly. 4.1 In regard to the issue of disallowing the credit to the tune of Rs. 2,63,04,759/- (taken on 30.11.2015) and Rs. 1,23,95,809/- (taken on 31.01.2015), it is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that these credits are actually eligible to the appellant. Prior to 1.4.2008, the definition of input services used the words "from the place of removal". Later, this was amended on 1.4.2008 by substituting the words "upto the place of removal" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amendment of one year is to be applied retrospectively w.e.f. 9/2014. . Consequently, the appellant would be eligible for availing the credit upto 2015 since all the invoices are issued prior to the date prescribed restricting the availment of credit. This issue was also considered in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 40835/2014 dt. 10.07.2024 and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4.3 The Ld. Consultant put forward the arguments on the ground of limitation also. It is submitted that the issue is purely interpretational in nature. There were several litigations pending before various forums and the issue had also reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2018 (9) GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises / depots. Following the same, the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 40835/2024 dt. 10.07.2024 had remanded the matter. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that this issue requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to ascertain the place of removal in accordance with Large Bench decision of the Tribunal and also to consider whether the appellant is eligible for credit. 8. The second issue is disallowance of credit alleging that the credit is availed beyond the time limit of 6 months / 1 year. The Ld. Consultant has explained that the issue as to whether the eligibility of credit for outward transportation of goods was litigated by them before the Tribunal as well as the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
