2013 (10) TMI 797 - AT - Central Excise

Goods Transport Service Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The services have very clear nexus with the manufacturing activity and are specifically covered by the definition of input services at Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Relying upon Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut 2010 (11) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Inputs are tangible goods and input services are intangible and therefore the degree of nexus that can be proved for inputs will be on a different footing as compared to input services - the inclusive portion of the definition in Rule 2(l) that input services of the nature are of a kind specified in the inclusive part of the definition. The goods are sold by the applicant at the premises of the customers and they paid excise duty on the value inclusive of freight - the Tribunal had allowed credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods from the factory to the buyers premises and the arrangement of selling the goods continued to be the same for the present period also and there has been no change in law either waiver of pre-deposit of dues granted Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on input services for two different periods.
2. Nexus between input services and manufactured products.
3. Cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this judgment revolves around the denial of cenvat credit on input services for two periods - April 11 to September 11 and October 11 to March 12. The Revenue denied the credits citing a lack of nexus between the input services and the industrial gases manufactured by the applicant. The applicant argued that the impugned services were covered under the definition of 'input services' in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and pointed out that the cases relied upon by the Revenue pertained to inputs, not input services. The advocate highlighted the distinction between tangible inputs and intangible input services, emphasizing that the nexus standard differs for the two categories.

2. Regarding the nexus between input services and manufactured products, the advocate contended that the impugned services had a clear connection with the manufacturing activity. The advocate referenced the inclusive portion of the definition of 'input services' to support the argument that the services in question fell within the scope of the definition. The Tribunal acknowledged the argument put forth by the advocate, noting that the degree of nexus required for input services might differ from that for tangible inputs, as established in previous judgments by the Hon. Apex Court. The Tribunal also mentioned a case where the Hon. Supreme Court doubted a previous decision on this issue and referred it to a Larger bench for clarification.

3. The judgment also addressed the issue of cenvat credit on GTA services utilized for outward transportation. The advocate for the applicant cited a previous decision by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal where credit on GTA services for outward transportation was allowed. The advocate argued that the arrangement for selling goods remained the same, and there had been no change in the law. The Tribunal agreed with the advocate's argument and granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for the admission of appeals. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered a stay on the collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the denial of cenvat credit on input services, the nexus between input services and manufactured products, and the treatment of cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation.