Summary
For periods before 1 April 2008, the Court upheld CENVAT credit for goods transport agency services carrying final products from the place of removal to the first depot or directly to the customer. The decision construed the earlier “from the place of removal” wording and distinguished the subsequent “upto” amendment.
Issues
- Whether the pre-1 April 2008 input-service definition covered outward transportation from the place of removal to the first destination.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(l), as applicable before 1 April 2008, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004The clearance “from the place of removal” language covered the first transportation leg to a depot or directly to a customer; the subsequent amendment was distinguished. (¶¶ 2, 4–8)
Held
- Credit was allowable on transportation from the place of removal to the first point, whether depot or customer. The claims concerned only that first leg, with no claim for a further depot-to-customer leg. (¶ 5–7)
- The change from “from” to “upto” effective 1 April 2008 supported the distinction between the earlier and later regimes. The Court confined its ruling to the first part of the definition challenged in these appeals. (¶¶ 2, 4, 8)
- In Civil Appeal 11400 of 2016, the 85-day delay before CESTAT was condoned and the assessee received the benefit of the same substantive ruling. (¶ 9–10)
Result
Departmental appeals dismissed. Civil Appeals 11400 of 2016 and 18897 of 2017 allowed in terms of the ruling.