SC: Insurer Must Pay Accident Compensation Despite Route Permit Violation, Recoverable From Owner  ||  SC: Recovery of Currency Alone Doesn’t Convict under PC Act Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance  ||  SC: Minor Variations in Later Statements Don’t Undermine First Dying Declaration if Reliable  ||  SC: Members of Unlawful Assembly Liable under Section 149 IPC Once Common Object is Proven  ||  Madras HC: Grandparents Can Execute Adoption Deed for Unmarried Daughter if She Consents  ||  Delhi HC: Guilty Plea Doesn’t Bypass Double Jeopardy; Second Conviction for Same Offence Invalid  ||  Del HC: Provision of Recall u/s 311 CrPC Ensures Justice, Not Multiple Chances to Negligent Litigant  ||  AP HC: Shutdown of Specific Unit Constitutes Closure, Workers Entitled to Compensation under S.25FFF  ||  P&H High Court: Over-Implication of Accused’s Relatives Turns Criminal Process Into Harassment  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act    

Phillips Carbon Black Limited VS C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (29 Apr 2022)

Cenvat Credit is available in case of outward transportation for the services availed from the place of removal up to the customers place

MANU/CS/0095/2022

Service Tax

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of outward GTA for period prior to 1st April, 2008.

The Appellant submits that from 1st April, 2008 in the main clause of the definition of the input service, the service related to removal of inputs was "from the place of removal", which was amended as "up to place of removal". Therefore, prior to 1st April, 2008 the cenvat credit on outward GTA was available.

Prior to 1st April, 2008, the services related to removal of the goods was "from the place of removal" which was replaced as amended with effect from 1st April, 2008 as "up to the place of removal". Therefore, the Cenvat Credit prima facie is available in case of outward transportation for the services availed from the place of removal up to the customers place. However, Board has prescribed certain conditions for allowing credit which need to be satisfied. Since the adjudicating authority has not verified the fact that, whether the said conditions of Board Circular have been complied with or not, the matter needs to be reconsidered.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and Appeal deserves to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after verifying the documents to ascertain that whether the appellant has fulfilled the condition as prescribed in the Board's Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23rd August, 2007.

Tags : CENVAT CREDIT   ENTITLEMENT   OUTWARD TRANSPORTATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved