9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere received in the factory and used inside the factory and duty thereon was paid, I find that there is no reason to deny this credit to the Appellant - Appeal is allowed - 1637 of 2009-SM - - - Dated:- 15-4-2011 - Mr. Mathew John, J. Appeared for Appellant : Shri P.M. Panwar, Consultant Appeared for Respondent : Shri Anil Khanna, SDR Per Mathew John: The Appellant is a manufacturer of Rectified Power Supply System. The Appellant availed Cenvat credit in respect of courier services utilized by the Appellant for despatch of documents and also for despatching samples of final products. The department is of the view that this service amounts to transportation of goods, and is related to post manufacturing activity. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken on tax paid on goods transport services utilised for removal of the goods from the place of removal. The Counsel relies on the case law of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. reported in 2005 (186) ELT 422 (Tri.-Del.) and argues that classification cannot be changed at the recipient s end. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd. reported in 2010 (18) STR 446 (Tri.-Del.) which allowed courier services as an input service. It is argued that the services of courier has been utilised in relation to Appellant s business since the Appellant could not have carried on his business without sending the samples to its dealers and prospective buyers and also without transmittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses is a distributor of equipments manufactured by M/s Statfield Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The invoice clearly shows that equipment was for delivery at the Appellant s factory because the consignee s name is shown as M/s Mark Exhaust System Ltd., village Begumpur Khatola, NH-8, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon . It is submitted that the equipment has been received in the Appellant s factory and it has been used in the process of manufacture and the only contention is that the invoice is not issued to the Appellant though the name of the Appellant is shown as consignee. The Counsel submits that CBEC clarified vide Circular No. 218/52/96-CX dated 4.6.96 that Cenvat credit can be taken on goods sold in transit. Further, he relied on Circular No. 441/7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the year 2000 is not applicable. 8. Considered arguments on both sides. 9. The definition of input service, in force at the relevant time, reproduced below :- Input service to mean, any service : (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
