9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1303 - AT - Service TaxCenvat Credit - Courier service - Whether Cenvat Credit taken with respect to courier services is admissible to the appellant or not - Held that - examining the facts of the present case in the light Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the period is from 01.02.2007 to 30.09.2007, that is before the definition of the term input service came to be amended with effect from 1.4.2008 and instead of the words clearance of final products from the place of removal the words clearance of final products upto the place of removal came to be substituted. Under the circumstances, this case would be squarely covered by the above decision and the courier services availed by the assessee whereby the courier collects the parcel from the factory gate for further transportation would fall within the ambit of the term input service as defined under rule 2(l) of the Rules - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs. Cadila Healthcare Limited 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Courier Services. Analysis: The appellant filed a stay application and appeal against OIA No. PJ/203/VDR-I/2013-14, concerning the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on courier services. The primary issue revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to claim Cenvat Credit for courier services utilized in business activities. The appellant argued in favor of admissibility, citing precedents such as a High Court decision and a judgment by the bench in a related case. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that Cenvat Credit was not admissible, referencing a Supreme Court judgment and decisions by the adjudicating authorities. The Tribunal examined the case records and noted that the High Court of Gujarat had upheld the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for courier services in a specific case, emphasizing the inclusive part of the definition of input service. The Tribunal also considered arguments regarding the use of courier services in relation to business activities and the clearance of goods from the place of removal. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by the same bench in a related case, which highlighted the broad definition of input service encompassing services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing and clearance of final products, including those related to business activities. The bench concluded that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit based on the inclusive part of the definition and the specific usage of courier services for sending documents, cheques, and demand drafts, rather than for dispatching final products. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment cited by the Revenue, clarifying that it pertained to the admissibility of credit for inputs, not input services, and was not directly relevant to the present case. The decision highlighted the distinction and upheld the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat Credit for courier services beyond the place of goods' removal, considering it as an activity in or in relation to manufacturing. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for courier services used in business activities and the manufacturing process. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and the specific usage of courier services by the appellant. The Tribunal's analysis considered the broader scope of input services and their connection to business activities, ultimately granting relief to the appellant based on the established legal principles and case law interpretations.
|
