9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 70 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - whether the Cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on services received at Depot by the appellant are admissible? - Held that - since it is used in the overall business activity of the appellant therefore even if it is received at depot, credit cannot be denied - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I Versus ECOF INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2011 (2) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Merely because the input service tax is paid at a particular unit and the benefit is sought to be availed at another unit, the same is not prohibited under law. Whether Cenvat credit in respect of Customs House Agent Services, Export Documentation Services, Motor Vehicles Services and Repair and Maintenance Services are admissible to the appellant? - Held that - the services are used for the business activity of the appellant and export of goods therefore same are input service and credit are admissible - reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, MANGALORE Versus M/s MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 2016 (1) TMI 481 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where the credit on similar services were allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on services received at Depot by the appellant. 2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on Customs House Agent Services, Export Documentation Services, Motor Vehicles Services, and Repair and Maintenance Services to the appellant. Analysis: Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on services received at Depot: The appellant argued that services received at the depot are related to their business activity, thus making them admissible for Cenvat credit. This argument was supported by various judgments, including those of Ecof Industries Pvt Ltd and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that since the services at the depot contribute to the overall business activity, denying credit solely based on the location of receipt is not justified. The Tribunal cited the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Ecof Industries Pvt Ltd to support the admissibility of Cenvat credit. Issue 2: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on various services: Regarding Customs House Agent Services, Export Documentation Services, Motor Vehicles Services, and Repair and Maintenance Services, the appellant contended that these services are essential for their business activities and export of goods, thus qualifying as input services eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal referenced judgments like Tata Steel Ltd, Birla Corporation Ltd, and Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd to support the admissibility of credit on these services. The Tribunal highlighted that these services directly or indirectly contribute to the manufacturing activity, making them eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Moreover, the Tribunal dismissed the argument that certain judgments had lost value as precedents due to a policy decision by the Central Government. It clarified that the decision to challenge a judgment rests with the government and does not diminish the binding value of existing judgments. The Tribunal emphasized that the decisions of co-ordinate Benches hold binding value unless referred to a Larger Bench. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the mentioned services, following the precedents set by various judgments. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, affirming the entitlement of the appellant to claim Cenvat credit on the input services utilized for their business activities and manufacturing processes. (Order pronounced in court on 19/07/2017)
|
