2021 (9) TMI 80 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services or not - certain services used at a depot outside the factory, from where the manufactured finished goods were cleared/sold - activities relating to business - HELD THAT - The co-ordinate Delhi Bench of the CESTAT in the case of BARMALT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III 2015 (12) TMI 213 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has dealt with an identical situation and held that input services used for storage up to the place of removal continued to be covered under the definition of input service. Therefore, the service tax paid on rent is also available as credit - The above ruling takes care of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Allowability of CENVAT Credit for services at a depot outside the factory
- Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Application of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:

1. Allowability of CENVAT Credit for services at a depot outside the factory:
The appellant, a manufacturer of cookies and dough, availed CENVAT Credit on various services, including rent/licence fees/maintenance charges for retail outlets outside the factory. The authorities issued Show Cause Notices proposing to demand ineligible credits for these services. The appellant argued that these services qualify as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for recovery of credits was confirmed, citing an amendment excluding certain activities from the definition of input services effective from 01.04.2011. The appellant's appeal was rejected initially, leading to the current appeal.

2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant contended that the issue was settled by a previous decision of the Delhi Bench of CESTAT in a similar case. The appellant argued that services used for setting up the factory and for storage up to the place of removal qualified as input services. The Tribunal referred to the previous case, where it was held that services for setting up the factory and storage up to the place of removal were covered under the definition of input services. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained based on this interpretation.

3. Application of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on the previous ruling to support the appellant's argument that services used for storage up to the place of removal were eligible for credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, allowing the CENVAT Credit for services at a depot outside the factory based on the interpretation of relevant rules and previous judicial decisions. The ruling emphasized the importance of considering the specific definitions and provisions under the CENVAT Credit Rules and the Central Excise Act, 1944 in determining the eligibility of credits for various services.