Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member), dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue alleging that the amendment of word “from” in the phrase “clearance of final products from the place of removal” to “upto” would not change the position of law as regards outward transportation upto the place of removal.
The respondent-assessee had availed cenvat credit on service tax paid on outward transportation of its finished goods, i.e. biscuits, which were transported up to the customers’ premises during the period from January, 2005 to September, 2007. Show cause notice dated 04-06-2008 was issued alleging suppression of facts etc. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with applicable interest and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the instant appeal was filed.
The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 769 where the Court had held that the assessee was legally eligible to avail credit on outward transportation availed from place of removal upto a certain point, whether it is a depot or customer’s premises.
The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal observed that the availment of credit on outward transportation from factory gate to customer’s place pertains to period prior to April 2008 i.e. prior to period when the definition of input service was amended so credit eligibility goes in favour of the assessee.[CCE v. Anmol Biscuits Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 256, decided on 28-10-2020]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
