2013 (11) TMI 795 - AT - Service Tax

Charge of wrong availment of cenvat credit - Service tax paid on CHA services and foreign courier services Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following CCE, RAJKOT Versus ADANI PHARMACHEM P. LTD. & ORS. 2008 (7) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Guntur Versus CCL Products (India) Ltd. 2009 (3) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - CHA services received at the port as input services as also courier service is an input service - the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit, interest, and penalty amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
- Eligibility of cenvat credit on CHA services and courier services as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The stay petition sought the waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit, interest, and penalty amounts totaling Rs.8,05,696/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. These amounts were confirmed as ineligible cenvat credit taken on CHA services, courier services, interest on service tax demand, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 by the adjudicating authority, which was upheld by the first appellate authority.

2. The issue at hand pertained to the eligibility of cenvat credit on CHA services and foreign courier services. The department alleged that these services were received after goods were removed from the factory premises, making them ineligible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

3. Despite the absence of representation from the assessee due to the advocate's ill health, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the stay petition, noting that the issue was of narrow compass. The ld. D.R. highlighted the charge of wrong availment of cenvat credit on the mentioned services.

4. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions by the division bench, such as Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. and Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd., which held that CHA services and courier services could be considered as input services. Additionally, the case of CCL Products (India) Ltd. established that courier services were classified as input services. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal found that the appellant had presented a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts in question and stayed the recovery until the appeal's final disposal. The legal points raised by the ld. D.R. were to be considered during the final disposal of the appeals.