2017 (1) TMI 605 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - LC charges and banking charges - Telephone & Fax services - Postage and courier services - Insurance services - denial on the ground that these services are not covered within the definition of input service - Held that - the issue with reference of LC charges and banking charges have been held in favor of the appellant following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Lupin Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST (LTU) 2014 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT MUMBAI I allow Cenvat credit of LC charges and banking charges. Telephone and Fax services have been utilized by the appellant at the offices of the company. Telephone also have been provided to some of their employees for activities connected with business. The issue regarding the Cenvat credit of such services stand decided in favour of the appellant in the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-I 2011 (10) TMI 142 - CESTAT MUMBAI - credit allowed. Postage and courier services have been utilized by the appellant for sending letters parcels and other business communication. Cenvat credit on such services stands allowed in the case CCE Vs. Apar Industries 2010 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - credit allowed. Insurance services have been utilized by the appellant towards insurance of employees as well as fire and marine insurance the issue of Cenvat credit on such services is also no more res integra and settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bangalore-II Vs. J.K. Fabrics 2015 (10) TMI 232 - CESTAT BANGALORE - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit on various services including LC charges, banking charges, telephone & fax services, postage and courier services, and insurance services.

LC charges and banking charges:
The appellant claimed Cenvat credit on LC charges and banking charges, arguing they fall within the definition of input service. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision supporting their claim. The judge reviewed the decision and allowed the Cenvat credit on LC charges and banking charges, following the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench.

Telephone & Fax services:
The appellant used telephone and fax services at their offices for business activities. Citing a relevant case, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat credit on telephone and fax services based on the precedent established in the Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. case.

Postage and courier services:
The appellant utilized postage and courier services for business communication. The judge referred to a case upheld by the Gujarat High Court, where Cenvat credit on such services was allowed. Consequently, the judge permitted the Cenvat credit on postage and courier services, considering the settled nature of the issue.

Insurance services:
The appellant availed insurance services for employees and property. Citing a Tribunal decision, the judge noted that the issue of Cenvat credit on insurance services was settled in favor of the appellants. Following this, the judge allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit on insurance services, stating that all the disallowed services qualify as admissible input services.

In conclusion, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, determining that all the services for which Cenvat credit was denied are eligible as admissible input services based on the established legal precedents and definitions.