2013 (7) TMI 711 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit on Input services - Cenvat credit availed on courier services and C&F agent services - Definition of input services does not include the services availed from place of removal but is up to the place of removal. In short, Revenue s case is that C&F agent services and courier services are utilised by the respondent only after the goods are cleared from the factory premises, which is the place of removal Held that - Period involved in this case is from September 2004 to October 2007 i.e. prior to the date on which provisions of definition of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended from 01.03.08 - Therefore relying upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Cenvat Credit allowed Decided against Revenue. Board s circular No.390/MISC/63/2010-JC dated 17.08.11 - Not to file an appeal to the Tribunal if the amount is less than ₹ 1,00,000/- - Held that - Amount involved in the appeal is ₹ 95,009/- - Appeal also needs to be dismissed in limine as per the Board s circular dated 17.08.11 Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility of cenvat credit on courier and C&F agent services prior to 01.03.08.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the allowance of cenvat credit on service tax paid by the respondent for courier and C&F agent services. The first appellate authority had allowed the credit based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a specific case. The Revenue contended that the services availed were not eligible for cenvat credit as they were utilized after goods were cleared from the factory premises, which is beyond the place of removal. The Revenue relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings and argued that the services were not related to the manufacture of finished goods. The advocate for the respondent cited judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat to support their case.

Upon careful consideration, the judge noted that the issue pertained to the eligibility of cenvat credit for services availed before the amendment of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01.03.08. The judge found that the judgments relied upon by the first appellate authority and the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat were applicable to the case at hand. Based on these authoritative judicial pronouncements and precedents, the judge found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

Additionally, the judge acknowledged a circular from the Board directing field formations not to file appeals to the Tribunal for amounts less than Rs.1,00,000. Since the amount involved in this appeal was Rs.95,009, the judge agreed with the counsel's submission that the appeal should be dismissed in limine as per the Board's circular. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced in court.