2019 (7) TMI 1344 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - invoices issued by ISD (Sales Offices/Depots of the Appellant) - various input services - various input services availed at their depot and subsequently the credit has been distributed in favour of the manufacturing unit - period 01.03.2009 to 31.08.2009 - HELD THAT - The credit availed on GTA service is not admissible. But, since the claim of the Appellant is that they have not availed credit on the GTA service in the present case, therefore, the said question does not merit any consideration. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various input services including Cargo Handling, C&F, Courier, Maintenance, Rent-a-cab, Telephone, C.A. Certification, and GTA services.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Input Services:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming the demand for inadmissible CENVAT Credit availed by the Appellants on various services. The Appellants contended that the services, including Cargo Handling, C&F, Telephone, Maintenance, Rent-a-cab, Courier, C.A. Certification, and others, qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Appellant cited precedents such as Tata Steel Ltd Vs CCE and CCE Vs Vallabh Steel Ltd to support their claim that these services were admissible as input services. The Tribunal acknowledged that all the mentioned services fell within the definition of 'input service' under the rules.

2. Specific Issue of GTA Service Credit:
The Revenue argued that credit availed on GTA service for transportation of goods from depot to customer's place was not admissible, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Appellant clarified that they had not availed credit on GTA services, contrary to the allegation in the show cause notice. The Tribunal noted this clarification and deemed the question of GTA service credit inapplicable to the case due to the Appellant's non-availment of such credit.

3. Tribunal's Decision and Precedents:
The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and observed that while credit on GTA service was generally inadmissible, the Appellant's assertion of not availing such credit in this instance was crucial. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to the definition of input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, supported by relevant precedents like Sunbeam Generators Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE and Ramco Cements Ltd Vs CCE.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision primarily revolved around the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various input services, with a specific focus on the GTA service credit issue, which was deemed irrelevant due to the Appellant's non-availment of such credit. The judgment highlighted the significance of correctly categorizing services as input services to determine the eligibility for credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules.