2018 (3) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services which belong to the buyers - C&F agency services - case of the department is that C&F agency services was not received by the appellant whereas same is rendered to the buyer directly therefore it is not input service for the appellant - Held that - Merely because the appellant have arranged C&F service through C&F agency and billing is made by C&F agency to the appellant does not mean that the appellant is a recipient of the service - Even assuming time being appellant as recipient of service but since the service was provided on behalf of buyers and for which amount of C&F agency charges collected by the appellant from the buyer service stands received by the buyer and not remained with the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether C&F agent services qualify as input services for availing Cenvat credit and whether the appellant is the recipient of the said services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, sells goods ex-factory and arranges logistic support for the buyer through a C&F agent. The appellant avails Cenvat credit for service tax paid by the C&F agent. The department contends that the services were not received by the appellant, making the credit inadmissible.

2. The appellant argues that C&F agent services are related to their business activity, making it an input service. They cite contracts with the C&F agent and judgments like Leroy Somer India P Ltd Vs CCE to support their claim. They assert that the buyer's request for logistic support justifies the arrangement with the C&F agent.

3. The appellant challenges the department's limitation period, stating that the issue of service eligibility warrants interpretation, thus invoking a larger period is unjustified. They refer to judgments like Lanxess Abs Ltd. Vs. CCE to support their argument.

4. The Revenue argues that the appellant routed invoices through themselves to avail Cenvat credit, but the service was for the buyer, not the appellant. They rely on judgments like Commissioner Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd to support their stance.

5. The Tribunal finds that the appellant is not the recipient of the C&F services as they are arranged on behalf of the buyer. The appellant's reimbursement of C&F charges from the buyer indicates the buyer as the actual recipient. The billing transaction through the appellant does not establish them as the service recipient. The Tribunal upholds the department's decision, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rules that the C&F agency services were provided for and on behalf of the buyer, making the buyer the actual recipient. The appellant's arrangement and billing process do not establish them as the service recipient, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit. The judgments cited by the appellant do not support their claim as the charges were absorbed in the final product's value, unlike in this case. The impugned order is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.