9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 253 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit on services like Custom House Agent - denial as the said services does not fall under the definition of input service - appellant paid the said amount under protest & later on filed a refund claim - Held that - Service Tax paid by CHA services are eligible for availment of CENVAT Credit as decided in JSW Steel Ltd 2012 (2012 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI). To that extent, the appellant are eligible for availment of CENVAT Credit and which has been reversed by them under protest is liable to be refunded to them. CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid on courier services - Held that - As decided in case of Apar Industries Ltd 2010 (2010 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD also confirmed in high Court 2013 (2) TMI 276 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the appellant is eligible for availment of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the courier services - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on services like Custom House Agent (CHA) and courier services. 2. Rejection of refund claim based on the nature of services provided. 3. Consistency in judicial decisions regarding the availment of CENVAT Credit on CHA and courier services. 4. Applicability of recent Division Bench decision on the case. 5. Impact of High Court judgment on the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on courier services. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on services like CHA and courier, which was challenged during an audit. The audit party contended that these services did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, leading to the reversal of the credit amount under protest. The appellant subsequently filed a refund claim based on judicial precedents supporting the availment of such credits. Issue 2: The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing precedents where CENVAT Credit on CHA services related to exports was deemed inadmissible. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 3: The Tribunal noted a consistent view in previous cases, such as JSW Steel Ltd, supporting the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on CHA services for export purposes. This established precedent was considered applicable to the current case, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the credit reversed under protest. Issue 4: The recent Division Bench decision in the case of JSW Steel Ltd was deemed relevant and applicable to the present case, further strengthening the appellant's claim for the refund of CENVAT Credit on CHA services. Issue 5: Regarding the CENVAT Credit on courier services, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Apar Industries Ltd, where such credit was deemed eligible. The Tribunal also highlighted a High Court judgment affirming the Tribunal's view on the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on courier services, further supporting the appellant's claim. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the established legal principles and judicial precedents supporting the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on both CHA and courier services.
|
