2020 (6) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - place of removal - whether the warehouse in the instant case is place of removal or otherwise? - HELD THAT - It is seen that the goods are cleared on payment of duty from the factory gate and thereafter the goods are deposited in the warehouse/ dumpsite. The goods are lifted by the buyers as and when required by the buyers from the dumpsite. The appellant are not only manufacturer but are also service provider. They are also one legal entity. Appellant are paying service tax due as service charges collected by them from their buyers. In these circumstances, the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on rental charges of warehouse cannot be denied as the same is admissible in respect of service provided by them to their buyers. The transfer of credit from the ISD registration to the manufacturing unit or service provider is immaterial as they are a single entity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for management, maintenance, repairs, and rental charges of warehouse.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Denial of Cenvat Credit: The appellant, M/s. Man Industries, filed appeals against the denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for various services related to their warehouse operations. The appellant argued that they are entitled to Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the warehouse is a place of removal. The appellant cited relevant decisions and circulars to support their argument.

2. Factory Gate as Place of Removal: The Authorized Representative relied on the order-in-original, stating that goods are cleared from the factory gate on payment of duty, making it the place of removal. It was argued that any place where duty-paid goods are stored, like the warehouse in question, cannot be considered the place of removal.

3. Interpretation of Rule 2(l)(ii): The Tribunal analyzed Rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which pertains to the utilization of Cenvat credit up to the place of removal. The key issue was determining whether the warehouse in this case qualifies as the place of removal for availing Cenvat credit on service tax.

4. Manufacturer and Service Provider Status: The Tribunal noted that the appellant is both a manufacturer and a service provider, with a common Cenvat credit account. The goods cleared from the factory gate are stored in the warehouse and then lifted by buyers as needed. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant also provides warehousing services for which they collect charges including service tax, which are not included in the assessable value of the goods.

5. Single Legal Entity: Considering that the appellant is a single legal entity engaged in both manufacturing and service provision, the Tribunal held that the denial of Cenvat credit on rental charges of the warehouse was unjustified. The transfer of credit from the Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration to the manufacturing unit or service provider was deemed immaterial, as the appellant operated as a unified entity.

6. Decision: Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order denying Cenvat credit and set it aside, ruling in favor of M/s. Man Industries. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 05.06.2020 by Hon’ble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.