2018 (6) TMI 1247 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - port Services - General Insurance Business Service - Commercial/Industrial Construction Service - Rent-a- cab service - Works contract service - extended period of limitation - Held that - As regards port services, Admittedly, the availment of cenvat credit has been shown by the appellant in their regular ER-1 returns and there is no separate column for segregating the cenvat credit availed by them service vice - extended period not invokable - demand set aside. General Insurance Business Service - place of removal - Held that - Admittedly, the said service has been availed by the appellant for transportation of goods from their factory gate to port of export and in case of export, the port of export is the place of removal - credit allowed. For remaining services, the appellant has already reversed the cenvat credit, therefore, the same is not considered by this Tribunal at this stage for denial or availment of cenvat credit. Penalties are set aside. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on various services including port services, General Insurance Business Service, Commercial/Industrial Construction Service, Rent a Cab Service, and Works Contract Service.

Analysis:

Port Services:
The appellant contested the denial of cenvat credit on port services, arguing that the show cause notice was time-barred for the period 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. They relied on a precedent (Medicaps Limited case) to support their position. The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as the cenvat credit was reflected in the regular returns without segregation. Consequently, the demand related to port services was set aside.

General Insurance Business Service:
Regarding General Insurance Business Service, the appellant justified their claim for cenvat credit by stating that the insurance was for transporting goods from the factory to the port of export, making them eligible for the credit. They cited a relevant case (Gobind Sugar Mills) to support their argument. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit for this service.

Remaining Services:
For Commercial/Industrial Construction Service, Rent a Cab Service, and Works Contract Service, the appellant had already reversed the cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the denial or availment of credit for these services at this stage.

Penalty Consideration:
Since the issues were discussed and resolved in favor of the appellant, no penalty was imposed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely issuance of show cause notices, the relevance of case law in determining eligibility for cenvat credit, and the impact of prior actions on the consideration of credit entitlement.