9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1511 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - security services - courier services - repair and maintenance service - place of removal - Held that - the claim of the appellants that the buyer s premises should be treated as place of removal cannot be sustained as they cannot take contradictory stand in respect of freight/ insurance and transit security service - the credit of security guard availed for transit from the factory to the buyer s premises is not admissible. Courier services - Held that - credit so far as it relates to courier service availed for documentation purpose is allowed. Reliance placed in the case of Radical Instruments Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II 2015 (11) TMI 779 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - In so far as courier service used for procurement of inputs would be allowed. reliance placed in the case of M/s Perfettti Van Meele India Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi - IV 2016 (7) TMI 632 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - So far as it relates to clearance of finished goods the credit would not be admissible. Repair and maintenance service availed for the purpose of repair of office furniture - Held that - it is apparent that the law on the issue is very clear and there is no scope of interpretation. The appellants have themselves been not including freight and insurance in the assessable value and also claiming that the place of removal is the buyer s premises, itself show that their contradictory stand - there is no merit in the contention of the appellants that it is an issue of interpretation - credit of repair and maintenance service used in the factory premises is allowed. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit for security services, courier services, and repair and maintenance services. Analysis: The appeal filed against the denial of cenvat credit for various services by Bharat Bijlee Ltd. was heard by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The appellant argued that due to the nature of their expensive products, they employed security services to ensure safe delivery to clients. They contended that the buyer's premises should be considered the place of removal, citing a Tribunal decision allowing cenvat credit for security services in transportation. However, the Tribunal found that since the goods were not intended for export, the decision cited was not applicable, and credit for security services availed for transit to the buyer's premises was deemed inadmissible. Regarding courier services for documents and small components, the appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim for cenvat credit. The Tribunal allowed credit for courier services used for documentation purposes but clarified that credit for procurement of inputs and clearance of finished goods would not be admissible. The issue of denial of cenvat credit for repair and maintenance services for office furniture within the factory premises was also addressed. The appellant argued that credit for such input services should not be denied. The Tribunal agreed with this contention and allowed cenvat credit for repair and maintenance services used within the factory premises. Lastly, the appellant challenged the penalty imposed and the invocation of an extended period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the law on the issues raised was clear, and there was no room for interpretation. The appellant's contradictory stance on including freight and insurance in the assessable value and claiming the buyer's premises as the place of removal weakened their argument against the penalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for courier services related to documentation and receipt of inputs, as well as for credit of repair and maintenance services used within the factory premises. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's findings, and the decision was pronounced in court on 27/10/17.
|
