9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 967 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services that were received by the appellants outside their factory premises - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellants own case M/S JSW STEEL (SALAV) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD 2016 (8) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that the Service Tax credit in respect of shipping fees and services availed in respect of vessels and barges is allowed. It is also noted that for availing cenvat credit in respect of input services, no condition has been prescribed of receipt of the said services within the factory premises. The input service credit is available only on the receipt of the services received by the manufacturer of the finished goods. The inclusive part specifically states that in respect of services in relation to procurement of goods and inward transportation of inputs is admissible - Since the services in the present case are received at captive jetties which are used for procurement and inward transportation of the goods, cenvat credit could not have been denied. Till the time it can be shown that input services have been used by the manufacturer of finished goods, in the process of manufacture or for conducting this business of manufacture of finished goods, the Cenvat credit on the input services cannot be denied, even if the said services are received at place other than factory premises - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of Cenvat credit on input services received outside the factory premises. Detailed Analysis: 1. Permissibility of Cenvat Credit on Input Services Received Outside Factory Premises: Background: The appeals are against orders denying Cenvat credit on input services received by the appellants outside their factory premises. The appellants operate a port facility (jetty) used for unloading raw materials and exporting finished goods. They claimed Cenvat credit on services such as maintenance, manpower recruitment, technical analysis, and cleaning related to vessels and barges used for these activities. Appellants' Argument: The appellants argued that under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, input services include services related to the procurement of inputs and inward transportation. They contended that these services, used for the procurement and export of goods, are integral to the manufacturing process and thus qualify for Cenvat credit. They cited several precedents, including Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., supporting their claim that services used in business activities are eligible for credit, irrespective of their location. Respondent's Argument: The department issued show cause notices stating that the services were not used directly or indirectly in the manufacture or clearance of final products. They argued that services related to vessels, tugs, and ports do not have a nexus with manufacturing activities, referencing the decision in Vikram Ispat. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by previous decisions in the appellants' favor, particularly the Tribunal's own decision in 2016 (46) STR 863 (Tri.-Mumbai), which allowed credit for services related to shipping fees and vessel maintenance. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no requirement in the Cenvat Credit Rules for services to be received within the factory premises to qualify for credit. They highlighted that input services used in the procurement and inward transportation of goods are admissible under the inclusive part of the definition in Rule 2(l). Distinguishing Previous Cases: The Tribunal distinguished the Vikram Ispat case, noting that it did not consider services received at a captive jetty or their role in procurement and transportation. The Tribunal reiterated that the activities of manufacture and clearance would not be possible without these services, and there is no stipulation in the Cenvat Credit Rules requiring services to be received within the factory premises. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders denying Cenvat credit were without merit. They set aside the orders and allowed the appeals, affirming that services used in the procurement and transportation of inputs, even if received outside the factory premises, are eligible for Cenvat credit. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in the open court, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.
|
