Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agent service.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit on insurance service for finished goods in transit.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit on maintenance and repair service for vehicles.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that clearing and forwarding services were essential for both importing inputs and exporting finished goods. They cited CBEC clarification that for export, the place of removal is the port of export, not the factory gate, making them eligible for credit. Various judgments were cited to support this argument.
2. Regarding insurance service for goods in transit, the appellant relied on judgments that held such services as creditable. The High Court decision in UOI Vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd. supported the admissibility of transit insurance, group personal accidental policy, and group health guard policy for company staff as input services.
3. The appellant contended that maintenance services for vehicles owned by the company were eligible for credit based on previous decisions allowing service tax credit on vehicle repair/maintenance used by executives involved in various company functions. The Tribunal's decision in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore supported this argument.

4. The Assistant Commissioner (AR) relied on Unitop Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE to argue that vehicle repair services lacked nexus with manufacturing activities, thus not qualifying as input services. They emphasized the necessity of a nexus between services used and goods manufacture, citing the case of CCE Vs. Manikgarh Cement.

5. The Tribunal found that clearing and forwarding services qualified as input services with a nexus to manufacturing activities. A CBEC circular clarified that for export, the place of removal is the port of clearance, making the credit for such services admissible. The judgment in UOI Vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd. supported the admissibility of insurance on finished goods in transit as an input service.

6. Regarding vehicle repair services, the Tribunal allowed the credit for services tax paid on vehicles owned by the company and used by the Managing Director, following the precedent set in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates