2018 (7) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - various input services - It was alleged that the assessee had availed the above mentioned input services after removal of finished goods from their factory gate and therefore, such input services had not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods and clearance of final products upto the place of removal - Held that - On a careful reading of the definition of input service, it can be observed that it was never the intent of the legislature to give it a restrictive meaning. Further, during the period July, 2007, to February, 2008, the definition of input services contained the phrase activities relating to business, which had a very wide connotation - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat Credit on specific input services post manufacturing activities.
- Determination of "place of removal" in the case involving both domestic and export sales.
- Eligibility of input services such as commission agent services, banking and financial services, cargo handling, security services, and GTA services for Cenvat Credit.
- Interpretation of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Application of relevant case laws in determining the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on disputed input services.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessee availing Cenvat Credit on input services post manufacturing activities, which the department alleged were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods up to the place of removal. The department issued Show Cause Notices for recovery of the Cenvat Credit availed, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue.

2. The ld.AR for the Revenue argued that some input services were used for post-manufacturing activities and lacked nexus with manufacturing or pre-manufacturing activities. He cited a Tribunal decision to support the claim that tax paid on services up to the point of removal is only admissible as credit.

3. The advocate for the assessee contended that the determination of the "place of removal" was erroneous, especially considering both domestic and export sales. He argued that services like commission agent services and banking and financial services were integral to manufacturing activities. The advocate relied on various case laws and the decision of the Gujarat High Court to support the eligibility of disputed input services for Cenvat Credit.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of input service, emphasizing that the legislature did not intend to give it a restrictive meaning. The Tribunal noted that the definition during the relevant period included a wide connotation of "activities" relating to business. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue.

5. The judgment highlighted the broad interpretation of the definition of input service and the legislative intent behind it. By considering the wide connotation of "activities" relating to business, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed input services were eligible for Cenvat Credit. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and relevant case laws, ultimately upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).