2017 (6) TMI 1379 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - port services - Cargo Handling Services - Customs House Agent's Services - Insurance services - Motor Vehicle insurance - Premises, equipment insurance - Transit Insurance of excisable goods - Insurance of cash during transit - Insurance of employee of appellant - Courier Services - HELD THAT - After hearing both the parties and perusal of record, it appears that Cenvat Credit of all the above services have been allowed in various decisions of Hon ble High Courts and Tribunal. The issue is no longer res integra since all services are covered by various decisions in favour of the appellant. Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT VERSUS ROLEX RINGS (P.) LTD. 2008 (2) TMI 295 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR VERSUS M/S BHILAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. 2015 (12) TMI 1268 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS., VAPI VERSUS APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 2010 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . There are no reason to sustain the impugned order - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit on input services related to manufacturing of Graphite Electrodes.

Analysis:
1. Common Issue of Cenvat Credit: The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of Cenvat Credit on input services like port services, cargo handling services, customs house agents services, insurance services, and courier services during the period from September 2004 to March 2011. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Graphite Electrodes, contested the department's denial of credit on these services, leading to the present appeal.

2. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents supporting the allowance of Cenvat Credit on the disputed services. For port services, decisions like CCE Jaipur Vs. Hindustan Zinc and CC Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. were cited. Similarly, for cargo handling services, cases such as CCE Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd. and Central Excise Vs. Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. were referred to. The Tribunal also mentioned decisions related to customs house agent's services, insurance services including motor vehicle insurance, premises, equipment insurance, transit insurance of excisable goods, insurance of cash during transit, and insurance of employees of the appellant, along with courier services.

3. Decision: After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that Cenvat Credit for all the mentioned services had been allowed in previous decisions of High Courts and Tribunals. The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer res integra as it was covered by favorable decisions. Consequently, the impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and both appeals were allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, concluding the matter in favor of the appellant.