2012 (8) TMI 824 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Courier services - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order has discussed the rules relating to input service and has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was held that credit of service tax paid on courier services utilised for dispatch of documents/samples/goods to customers is admissible - Commissioner s reliance on those decisions is appropriate and no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to show that the courier services were not used for the purpose for which the respondents have claimed to have been used - Following decision of CCE Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 562 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , Rohit Surfuctants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (12) TMI 202 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , CCE Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (3) TMI 35 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. CCE 2009 (8) TMI 172 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of cenvat credit on courier services under input service definition as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Appeal against the demand, interest, and penalty imposed based on CERA audit findings.

Issue 1:
The case involved the eligibility of cenvat credit on courier services amounting to Rs.4,01,901/- during September 2008 to August 2009 under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The CERA audit raised concerns regarding the service falling outside the input service definition, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced various tribunal decisions, including CCE Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd., Rohit Surfuctants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, CCE Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. CCE to support the admissibility of cenvat credit for courier services used for dispatch of documents/samples/goods to customers. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's reliance on these decisions appropriate, noting the absence of evidence from the Revenue to refute the respondent's claim on the usage of courier services. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the respondent's eligibility for cenvat credit on courier services.

Issue 2:
The appeal filed by the respondent challenging the demand, interest, and penalty imposed post the CERA audit findings was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the Revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, found that the Commissioner's order discussing the rules related to input service and citing relevant tribunal decisions was appropriate. As the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the respondent's usage of courier services, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the demand of Rs.4,01,901/- along with interest and penalty was not confirmed, providing relief to the respondent.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the importance of substantiating claims with evidence in cases involving the eligibility of cenvat credit and the significance of legal precedents in supporting such claims during appellate proceedings.