9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 250 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - place of removal - Storage and Warehousing Service for storage of goods at the premises of C F agent in relation to onward sale of goods, cleared by the appellant from the factory - HELD THAT - The dispute is in relation to Service of Storage and Warehousing at the premises of C F Agent as the agent of the appellant from whose premises the sale of goods take place on behalf of the appellant only. In terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, the place from where the goods is sold is also the place of removal - In the present case since the sale of goods is from the C F Agent s premises, the said premises is the place of removal. Therefore the service provided upto the place of removal is admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Even in terms of inclusion clause under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the service of Storage and Warehousing is clearly included and for this reason also the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit. The appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on Storage and Warehousing Service at C F Agent s premises - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Entitlement to Cenvat credit for Storage and Warehousing Service at C&F agent's premises in relation to onward sale of goods. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolved around the entitlement of the appellant to Cenvat credit for Storage and Warehousing Service at the premises of the C&F agent in relation to the onward sale of goods cleared by the appellant from the factory. The appellant argued that all services up to the place of removal are admissible input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, with the C&F agent's premises being the place of removal where the sale of goods takes place. The appellant contended that the storage and warehousing service up to the place of removal falls under the inclusion clause of the definition of Input Service. Reference was made to a decision of the Chennai bench of CESTAT for support. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Joint Commissioner (AR), relied on the findings of the impugned order and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a different case. The Revenue's position was in opposition to the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the dispute centered on the Service of Storage and Warehousing at the C&F Agent's premises, where the goods were sold on behalf of the appellant. The Member noted that as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the place from where the goods are sold is considered the place of removal. Since the sale of goods in this case occurred at the C&F Agent's premises, it was deemed the place of removal. Consequently, the service provided up to the place of removal was considered an admissible input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The inclusion clause under the same rule also supported the conclusion that the service of Storage and Warehousing was eligible for Cenvat credit. Regarding a judgment cited by the Revenue representative in a different case, the Member clarified that it pertained to sales commission and was distinguishable from the present case. The Member highlighted that in the current scenario, the Storage and Warehousing service was provided before the sale of goods, up to the place of removal, making the cited judgment inapplicable. Based on the analysis and findings, the Member ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was deemed entitled to Cenvat credit for the Storage and Warehousing Service at the C&F Agent's premises.
|
