2017 (7) TMI 890 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - job-work - place of removal - denial on the ground that the place of removal of the goods manufactured by appellant on job work basis is the factory premises and not the depot of PBPL? - Held that - similar issue in respect of other job workers of PBPL was before the Tribunal in many cases where the Bench in detailed order held in favour of the appellants therein. In view of the fact that similar issue has been decided in favour of various job workers on identical set of facts I find that the impugned order in this case also does not survive - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid for Goods Transport Agency services.
- Dispute regarding the place of removal of finished goods.
- Interpretation of the definition of input service.
- Precedents of similar cases involving job workers for the same principal.

Analysis:

The appeal in this case concerns the appellant's availing of Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid for Goods Transport Agency services during a specific period. The appellant, a job worker of a company, transported finished goods to the principal's godowns and paid the service tax as a recipient. The lower authorities denied the Cenvat credit, arguing that the place of removal of the goods was the factory premises, not the principal's depot, emphasizing duty liability discharge based on MRP basis assessment under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act 1944.

The appellant's counsel referenced previous Tribunal decisions favoring job workers in similar disputes with the same principal company. The counsel highlighted that prior to April 1, 2008, Cenvat credit was allowed up to the place of removal, supported by a High Court judgment. The main contention was the disagreement over the place of removal, either the depot or the factory gate, with the appellant asserting the former. Given the consistent rulings in favor of job workers in similar cases, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable.

Moreover, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit based on the Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court for the period before April 1, 2008. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could avail of the Cenvat credit on Goods Transport Agency services' service tax. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant regarding the disputed Cenvat credit issue related to the transportation services.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the intricacies of the issues surrounding Cenvat credit availment, the place of removal of goods, the interpretation of input services, and the relevance of precedents in similar cases involving job workers. The detailed examination of legal arguments and precedents provides a clear understanding of the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.