9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 897 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - invoices issued by the principal importers from whom the appellant purchased the inputs on high sea import basis - whether the principal importer was not an agent for the purpose of passing on such credit of service tax paid before the date of the agreement? - HELD THAT - The issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in appellant s own case for the earlier years i.e. December, 2010 to December, 2015 in the matter of M/S REVEX POLYMERS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , DGGSTI, JAIPUR 2019 (2) TMI 2048 - CESTAT NEW DELHI in which this Tribunal while deciding the issue whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit on such storage or warehousing charges paid on inputs, it was held that the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on storage or warehouse charges incurred in the course of acquisition of inputs. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Wrong availing of Cenvat Credit on service tax invoices. 2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Precedent set by Tribunal in a similar case. 4. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on storage or warehousing charges. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order dated 9.12.2021 by the Commissioner (Appeals), CE & CGST, which rejected the appellant's appeal regarding the wrongful availing of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on invoices issued by principal importers. The Revenue claimed that the appellant wrongly availed the credit as the services were incurred before the agreement date with the appellant, and the appellant did not directly avail the services or pay the service provider. The Revenue demanded the wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.59,640/- for the period from January 2016 to June 2017. 2. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that the appellant did not qualify for input service credit as per the rule since the services were not directly availed by the appellant from the actual service provider. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case for the appellant's earlier years was cited, where it was held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on storage or warehousing charges paid on inputs. The Tribunal reasoned that the warehouse or storage charges paid were part of the input cost, making the appellant eligible for the credit. 3. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the matter of M/s. Rovex Polymers Pvt. Ld. Vs. Commr. (Appeals), DGGSTI, Jaipur, where it was established that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on storage or warehousing charges incurred in the acquisition of inputs. The Tribunal's decision in the previous case was not challenged, leading to the current appeal being allowed based on the precedent set by the Tribunal. The appellant was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law. 4. The Tribunal, without delving into further details of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, citing the precedent set by its earlier decision. The appellant was granted relief, if any, as per the law. The order was pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2022.
|
