2012 (4) TMI 538 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - job worker services, cargo handling services and servicing of motor vehicles - Held that - availability of the cenvat credit in respect of duty paid by the job worker has already been considered by the Tribunal and in the case of Multi-Organic Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 513 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . It has been held that even though the job worker is entitled to exemption under Notification No.8/2005-ST and if he has not availed the exemption, the service tax credit would be admissible to the person who availed the services of job worker. The present case is similar to the one decided by the Tribunal and therefore the credit availed by appellant is in order. As regards cargo handling services he drew my attention to the invoice issued by the CHA which clearly shows that the amount was paid by the CHA A.V. Joshi & Co. CFS on behalf of the appellant. The invoice shows the name of the forwarders and also mentions A/c Royal Touch Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute that appellant has received the service and in view of the fact that the invoice clearly shows that the service was provided on account of the appellant and payment was made by A.V. Joshi & Co. as a pure agent, the credit has to be held as admissible. As regards the service tax paid on service tax of vehicles, the ld. counsel fairly submits that he is not pressing the eligibility since the amount involved is small - credit of service tax paid on cargo handling services, in view of the fact that invoice clearly shows the name of the appellant and amount has been paid on their behalf and there is no dispute that service has been received by them, the credit is admissible - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit of service tax paid on job worker services, cargo handling services, and servicing of motor vehicles.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the denial of credit of service tax paid on job worker services, cargo handling services, and servicing of motor vehicles. The appellant contended that cenvat credit should be available for duty paid by the job worker, citing a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal had previously ruled that service tax credit would be admissible to the person availing the job worker services even if the job worker is entitled to an exemption. The appellant argued that the present case was similar to the precedent, justifying the credit availed. Regarding cargo handling services, the appellant pointed out that the invoice clearly indicated payment made by a third party on behalf of the appellant, making the credit admissible. However, the appellant did not press for the eligibility of the credit for servicing of motor vehicles due to the small amount involved.

The Tribunal, in agreement with the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, held that the cenvat credit of service tax paid by the job worker was settled by the previous decision cited. Regarding the credit for cargo handling services, the Tribunal found that the invoice clearly identified the appellant as the recipient of the service, with payment made on their behalf, making the credit admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, except for the amount of cenvat credit related to the servicing of motor vehicles, which was disallowed due to non-claiming by the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal concerning the denial of credit for job worker services and cargo handling services, except for the amount related to servicing of motor vehicles, which was disallowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the admissibility of cenvat credit as established by previous rulings and the specific circumstances of the case, as evidenced by the invoices and payment details provided.