2012 (10) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Courier Services - Held that - 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 - assessee is eligible to take credit on the courier services - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on Courier Service/charges
- Nexus between the service and manufacture for credit admissibility

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on Courier Service/charges from April 2005 to September 2009, amounting to Rs.14,132. The department contended that the service did not meet the definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to a show cause notice being issued on 05/04/2010.

2. The Assessee appealed the Original Adjudicating Authority's decision, where the Commissioner ruled in favor of the Assessee's eligibility for credit, citing precedents from various Tribunal cases, including CCE vs. HEG ltd, Rohit Surfuctants Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, CCE vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. CCE.

3. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision, arguing that there was no nexus between the service and manufacturing, thereby disputing the admissibility of credit for services rendered post-removal.

4. The presiding judge referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd., where it was established that the Apex Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki's case was considered. The judge found both the Revenue's and the Commissioner's submissions unacceptable based on this precedent.

5. Considering the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the Commissioner, which were deemed applicable to the case, the judge concluded that the Assessee was indeed eligible to claim credit on the courier services. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection was disposed of accordingly.