2015 (5) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Service tax paid on the invoices raised by the C&F agents on GTA outward transportation - Held that - It is evident from the invoices that the C&F agents are registered with the Service Tax authorities and have paid service tax on the services rendered by them as C&F agents to the appellants. The services include freight, delivery charges, transportation charges, airway bill charges, surcharges, handling charges (both loading and unloading). It is clear from the invoices, the C&F agents have rendered the said services to the appellant not only on transportation but other charges and paid service tax. - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II Vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit by Adjudicating authority.
2. Confirmation of demand and penalty.
3. Eligibility of appellants to avail credit under C&F agent service or GTA Outward Transport service.
4. Applicability of input service credit on invoices raised by C&F agents.
5. Interpretation of the definition of "input service" pre-amendment on 01.04.2008.
6. Comparison of decisions in similar cases.
7. Applicability of service tax paid by C&F agents for transportation and other service charges.
8. Role of C&F agents in sales promotion.
9. Definition of clearing and forwarding agent.
10. Determination of the place of removal.
11. Eligibility of appellants for input credit based on previous appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:
The case involves the disallowance of Cenvat credit by the Adjudicating authority, leading to the confirmation of demand and penalty. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, availed Cenvat credit on invoices raised by C&F agents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, prompting the appeal. The main contention was the eligibility of the appellants to avail credit under C&F agent service or GTA Outward Transport service, especially considering the period before the amendment of the definition of "input service" on 01.04.2008. The appellants argued that the C&F agents were duly registered and paid service tax, citing precedents to support their claim.

The issue of input service credit on invoices raised by C&F agents was central to the case. The invoices indicated services beyond transportation, including freight, delivery charges, and handling charges, for which the C&F agents had paid service tax. The departmental representative argued against the eligibility of appellants for input credit on GTA Outward Transport service, relying on specific decisions. The judgment referred to the High Court's ruling on the role of C&F agents in sales promotion and the definition of clearing and forwarding agent, emphasizing the place of removal as a crucial factor in determining input service eligibility.

The judgment analyzed the applicability of previous decisions and the specific circumstances of the case. It concluded that the appellants were eligible for input credit on the service tax paid by the C&F agents, aligning with the decision in the appellants' own case where the appeal was allowed by the lower appellate authority. The judgment highlighted the relevance of the High Court's ruling on the nature of services provided by C&F agents and the definition of clearing and forwarding agent in determining input service eligibility. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed based on the applicability of the High Court's judgment to the present case and the previous favorable decision in the appellants' case.