2013 (2) TMI 590 - AT - Central Excise

Place of removal - CENVAT credit on storage and warehousing charges paid at the depot - Held that - Appellant is selling from the depot and depot is the place of removal as defined in Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If depot is the place of removal, service tax paid on services received upto the place of removal is an eligible input service under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, and the appellant is entitled for credit of service tax paid on storage and warehousing charges incurred at the depot - In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay application filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB(59-60) 59-60/MI/2010.
2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on storage and warehousing charges paid at the depot.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the condonation of delay application filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB(59-60) 59-60/MI/2010 dated 18.10.2010. The appellant had initially filed a composite appeal against two orders but later revised the appeal separately. The reason for the delay was considered satisfactory, and the application was allowed by the Tribunal.

2. The main issue in the case pertains to the eligibility of CENVAT credit on storage and warehousing charges paid at the depot. The appellant sells goods from the depot, considering it as the place of removal. The department disputed this classification, arguing that the service tax credit was availed after manufacturing operations were completed. The lower appellate authority upheld the denial of credit along with interest.

3. The appellant's representative argued that a previous order by the appellate authority had allowed CENVAT credit on similar charges for a different period, which was not challenged by the department and had attained finality. Citing judgments from the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, the representative contended that storage and warehousing charges are eligible input services under the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004.

4. The Department's representative conceded the issue, acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to the credit.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the appellant sells goods from the depot, which qualifies as the place of removal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, service tax paid on services up to the place of removal is eligible for credit. Since the appellate authority's decision allowing the credit was not challenged by the department, the issue was deemed final. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and disposing of the stay applications.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of the condonation of delay application and the eligibility of CENVAT credit, providing a detailed overview of the Tribunal's judgment.