2017 (5) TMI 1574 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Outdoor Catering Services - Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) Services - GTA (Good Transport Agency) (outward transportation from factory to buyer s place/premises) - Held that - As regard the outdoor catering services, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. GTC Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 56 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held in favor of the assessee - credit allowed. Clearing and forwarding services - Held that - The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that clearing and forwarding agent services are cenvatable - credit allowed. Outward transportation of the goods from the factory of the customer place - Held that - The service has been held to be cenvatable by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Confirmed by Hon ble Karnataka High Court reported as CCE v. ABB Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - credit allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment on eligibility of input services for Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment dismissing the appeal regarding the eligibility of certain services for Cenvat credit. The substantial question of law framed by the appellant pertained to the eligibility of outdoor catering, Clearing & Forwarding (C&F), and Good Transport Agency (GTA) services as 'input services' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant availed Cenvat credit amounting to ?37,28,467/- for these services during the period from January 2006 to September 2006.

The Tribunal, in its observations, found in favor of the assessee on all three disputed issues. Firstly, concerning outdoor catering services, a previous decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, ruled in favor of the assessee. Secondly, regarding clearing and forwarding services, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision confirmed that such services are cenvatable. Lastly, the Tribunal highlighted that outward transportation of goods from the customer's place was considered cenvatable based on a Larger Bench decision upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.

The judgment of the Bombay High Court, referenced in the Tribunal's decision, was deemed still valid, leading to no requirement for interference. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, and subsequently dismissed the appeal.