9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portation of manufactured goods beyond the place of removal cannot be covered within the definition of input services as defined in Section 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The department also disputes a credit entry relating to an invoice in the name of M/s J.S. Enterprises, on which the Appellant had claimed credit of duty paid. An objection was raised that this invoice is issued to M/s J.S. Enterprises, Faridabad and not to the Appellant. The duty involved on this invoice is stated to be Rs.18,044/- in the Show Cause Notice. The department was of the view that since this invoice is not addressed to the Appellant, it cannot take credit on the basis of this invoice. On the above two counts, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the definition of 'input services' covers such services and relies on the decision of Bombay High Court in CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.). He argues that there is no reason to deny Cenvat credit availed by them for tax paid on courier services. 3. In the case of capital goods, the first submission is that the Cenvat credit involved on invoice No. 1334 dated 29.3.04 is only Rs.15,148/-. But the department has taken the amount as Rs.18,044/-. 4. The Counsel points out that this matter is dealt with in para 4 of Show Cause Notice. In the said para no reference number of the invoice or its date is given. The date on which such credit was taken also is not stated. He submits that in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rifying that minor procedural lapses in the matter of claiming Cenvat credit cannot be sufficient reason for denial of Cenvat credit so long as the facts of receipt of the goods in the factory and its use in the manufacture of goods are not disputed. The department has not made out any case that this credit was utlised by the person to whom the invoice was issued. The counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2011 (266) ELT 110 (Tri.-Del.) to support his claim that credit cannot be denied to the Appellant. 7. The ld. DR submits that the service of courier agencies availed by the Appellant is not in relation to the manufacture of final products. He relies on the finding of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs of capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal." 10. It is very clear that all services used in relation to the clearance of the product from the place of removal was within the ambit of input service. However, the final part of the definition covered transportation of goods up to the place of removal only. 11. It is to be noted that the activity of sending samples is for business promotion and without this business promotion, he cannot be selling these goods. Therefore, the service in question in this case has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
