2013 (12) TMI 497 - AT - Service Tax

Eligibility for cenvat credit on couriers and Goods Transport Agencies services - Services used for removal of exisable goods beyond factory gate - Scope of Definition of Input Service - Revenue was of the view that after the amendment of Input Services at Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2008 Held that - Following CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd., 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Cenvat credit on Courier services and GTA services decided in favour of the applicant - the claim that the appellant have paid excise duty on the value inclusive of the value of Courier services/ GTA services has not been examined - This is a very relevant fact to decide whether it should be considered as an input service - The most relevant issue to be decided is what is the place of removal because even after the amendment dated 01-04-2008 services for removal up to the place of removal is included in the definition of input services Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on services used for removal of excisable goods beyond the factory gate.
2. Adjudication confirming the demand for denied amounts along with interest and penalty.
3. Interpretation of the term "place of removal" in the context of Cenvat credit eligibility.
4. Conflict in decisions regarding Cenvat credit on courier and GTA services.
5. Examination of excise duty payment on value inclusive of courier and GTA services for considering them as input services.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contended that Cenvat credit cannot be claimed on services used for clearance of goods beyond the factory gate post an amendment in the definition of 'Input Services.' A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of Cenvat credit taken on courier and GTA services, along with other services, totaling Rs.1,62,15,750.

2. The demand for the denied amounts was confirmed during adjudication, leading to the filing of an appeal by the applicant along with a stay petition that is under consideration.

3. The applicant argued that the place of removal should be considered as the premises of the customer since goods were sold at those premises. They referenced a CBEC circular and a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision supporting their stance. The applicant also highlighted a Tribunal decision affirming Cenvat credit availability on transportation services up to the customer's premises.

4. Conflicting decisions were noted on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for courier and GTA services. The Tribunal found the decision in Gala Precision Technology Pvt. Ltd. most aligned with the case's facts, emphasizing the importance of examining whether excise duty was paid on the value inclusive of such services.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to determine the "place of removal" as services up to this point are considered input services even post the 2008 amendment. Since this crucial aspect was not addressed in the impugned order, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for dues arising from the order to admit the appeal and stay recovery until its disposal.