2019 (9) TMI 1641 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Courier Service - demand of CENVAT Credit on the ground that whatever material was sent through Courier, there is no proof that the said goods have come back to the factory - HELD THAT - The appellant claimed that the Courier Service was used for dispatch of office communication/documents and some time samples of Raw Material / Capital Goods for testing, repairs etc. Under the same set of facts this Tribunal has consistently taken a view that the Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service is admissible. The case of the appellant is supported by judgments cited by them in the case of MODERN PETROFILS DTY DIV VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA AND ASSOCIATED POWER STRUCTURES PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA 2017 (9) TMI 206 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that the documents relating to technical expert's opinion, sample testing report, sending of samples, machine catalogue etc., are received and dispatched by utilizing the services of Courier and it cannot be said that these are de hors of the activities of manufacturing business. Proof regarding return of the goods - HELD THAT - It is not relevant as the issue involved is admissibility of Cenvat on Courier Service. The Courier Service was used in or in relation to manufacture and removal of goods. Therefore, the ground for denial that goods sent by Courier Service did not come back to the factory is not relevant. Cenvat Credit is admissible - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the question of whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit for Courier Service. The appellant, represented by Shri S. J. Vyas, argued that the Courier Service was utilized for dispatching samples of raw materials and capital goods for various purposes like testing and repairs. A Chartered Accountant's Certificate supported this claim. The appellant cited relevant judgments, including Modern Petrofils Dty Div & Ors. Vs. CCE 2017 (9) TMI 206 and Haldyn Glass Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE 2017 (8) TMI 1217, to bolster their argument.

On the other hand, Shri Govind Jha, Ld. Superintendent (AR) representing the Revenue, contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the absence of proof that the goods sent via Courier Service returned to the factory. However, the Tribunal noted that the core issue was the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Courier Service, not the return of goods. The Tribunal consistently held the view that Cenvat Credit for Courier Service is permissible when used in relation to the manufacture and removal of goods, as supported by the judgments referenced by the appellant.

After considering both sides' arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was indeed entitled to Cenvat Credit for Courier Service. The Tribunal found the argument regarding the return of goods irrelevant to the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Courier Service. Consequently, the impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirmed the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat Credit for Courier Service, emphasizing that the usage of Courier Service in manufacturing and goods removal justified the credit, irrespective of whether the goods returned to the factory.