2013 (4) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of cenvat credit on the services related to the inputs not used in the manufacture of goods which are exported - Held that - A.R. has rightly relied upon the judgment of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Chennai (2007 (3) TMI 86 - CESTAT,CHENNAI ) where the clarification dated 13.12.96 relied upon by the appellant was also considered. After considering all the aspects of the case it was held by Chennai CESTAT bench that credit, with respect services utilized only in the activity of trading of components, no cenvat credit is available on such components. On the same analogy the services used with respect to traded items will not be admissible when the services are utilized only for export of such traded items which are net used in the stream of manufacture - appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of cenvat credit on services related to non-manufacturing inputs for exported goods.

Analysis:

The appeal in question was filed against an order upholding the credit taken on services for certain trading goods by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that CBEC circular No.283/117/96-CX allows credit on services related to traded goods. Additionally, they cited a judgment from CESTAT Mumbai to support their claim. However, during the hearing, the appellant did not appear but submitted written arguments referencing a news service reporting a favorable decision by CESTAT Mumbai Bench.

The respondent, represented by the ld. A.R., relied on judgments to argue that services related to trading activities are not eligible for cenvat credit under Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

The central issue in this case is the admissibility of cenvat credit on services linked to inputs not used in manufacturing goods that are exported directly. The appellant exported inputs without using them in manufacturing, raising the question of credit eligibility. The appellant's reliance on a CESTAT Mumbai judgment and a CBEC circular was examined. The Mumbai judgment involved bought-out items used in manufacturing, which is not the case for the appellant. The Chennai CESTAT bench's decision in Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Chennai was cited, emphasizing that no credit is available for services used solely in trading activities. Following this reasoning, the appeal was dismissed as services used for traded items not involved in manufacturing are not eligible for cenvat credit.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the admissibility of cenvat credit on services related to non-manufacturing inputs for exported goods was dismissed based on the precedent set by the Chennai CESTAT bench and the lack of usage of traded items in the manufacturing process.