2022 (4) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Courier Services - service provider had collected the consignment from the Appellant s factory gate and delivered the goods at the overseas customers - place of removal - HELD THAT - The impugned service was used by the Appellant for export of goods. In these circumstances, it is held that the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on input service namely Courier Services which have been availed by the appellant in the course of their business to export of goods. Further, it is found that in number of cases Tribunal has consistently taken a view that Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service is admissible - reliance can be placed in the case of AMUL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD VERSUS C.C.E. AND S.T., RAJKOT 2018 (2) TMI 473 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and MODERN PETROFILS DTY DIV VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA AND ASSOCIATED POWER STRUCTURES PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA 2017 (9) TMI 206 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Courier Services.
2. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on Courier Services for export of goods.
3. Interpretation of "place of removal" in the context of Cenvat Credit.
4. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues.
5. Relevance of the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. judgment in the present matter.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Courier Services by the Commissioner (Appeals) GST & Central Excise, Vadodara. The department objected to the Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant, stating that the services provided by courier companies for delivering goods to overseas customers were beyond the place of removal, thus not eligible as "Input Service" under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellant argued that the entire transaction of picking up goods from the factory gate and delivering them to overseas customers should be considered a single transaction, making the Cenvat credit eligible. The appellant cited several decisions supporting their claim, emphasizing that the credit for such a single transaction should be legally available.

3. The Hon'ble CESTAT referred to the case of CCE, Vapi Versus Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the concept of "upto place of removal" applies only to GTA services and not to other services. This clarification supported the appellant's argument regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit on Courier Services beyond the factory gate.

4. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including those of Haldyn Glass Ltd., Raymond Uco Denim Pvt. Ltd., Sew Eurodrive India Pvt. Ltd., Radical Instrumental, Amul Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Modern Petrofils Dty Div, which consistently supported the admissibility of Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Services. These judgments reinforced the appellant's position.

5. The Tribunal distinguished the judgment of M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. cited by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), noting that it pertained to the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on GTA services, whereas the present dispute focused on the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for Courier Services used in the export of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief as per law.