2018 (6) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - clearing and forwarding agency services - expenses incurred beyond the place of removal - Held that - CENVAT credit is the mechanics by which the cascading effects of taxation are eliminated. Necessarily, if tax paid on output has not excluded any cost of input/input service, then the tax availed on such input service should not be excluded from entitlement to CENVAT credit - As the price of goods at the place of removal is subject to levy of excise duty, the objective of CENVAT credit mandates that all such heads of costs which go into such price should not be excluded from eligibility to credit. Considering the nature of expenditure, therefore, the tax paid thereon would have to be neutralized - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
- Upholding of demand of ?11,60,958.68 with interest and penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Dispute over availing CENVAT credit for expenses beyond the place of removal.
- Interpretation of input services in relation to manufacture of goods.
- Application of the concept of place of removal in determining eligibility for credit.
- Impact of VAT principles on CENVAT credit scheme.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the aggrieved party, M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, contesting the demand upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Mumbai, for ?11,60,958.68 along with interest and penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose regarding the availing of CENVAT credit for expenses incurred beyond the place of removal, which was challenged by the jurisdictional authorities.

2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing lubricating oils, transferred products to their central warehouse for distribution to customers. The contention revolved around whether post-removal charges could be considered as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that credit could only be availed for input services directly related to the manufacture of goods, excluding post-removal charges.

3. The appellant relied on precedents, including a Tribunal decision and a High Court judgment, to support their claim for credit on expenses related to clearing and forwarding activities. The argument emphasized the integral connection between such activities and the manufacturing process, asserting that the depot could be considered the place of removal, thus justifying the eligibility for CENVAT credit.

4. The Tribunal delved into the fundamental principle of CENVAT credit, aiming to eliminate the cascading effects of taxation. It highlighted the importance of not excluding any cost of input services from credit entitlement if the tax paid on output did not exclude such costs. The judgment emphasized the neutrality of VAT systems, where the tax burden should ultimately rest on the final consumer, aligning with the destination-based consumption tax rule adopted by India.

5. The analysis further dissected the definition of input services under five categories, emphasizing that if an assessee satisfies any one of these categories, they should be eligible for credit. The judgment underscored that the denial of credit for input services that form part of the final product's assessable value would contradict the essence of CENVAT as a value-added tax scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously examined the intricacies of CENVAT credit rules, the interpretation of input services, the significance of the place of removal, and the alignment of VAT principles with the CENVAT credit scheme, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

← Previous Next →