9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & HARYANA HIGH COURT]. Therefore the godowns at Agra and Farrukhabad are to be considered as "place of removal" for the appellant notwithstanding the fact that sugar is an item subjected to specific rate of duty. Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically includes many post manufacturing activities like service relating to sales, promotion etc and therefore standard prescribed for inputs cannot be adopted for input services. Therefore not convinced by the argument advanced by Revenue that these services have no nexus the goods manufactured. No reason to deny Cenvat credit of tax paid on Rent of godown at Agra/ Farrukhabad, Sugar handling charges at the said godowns & Security services availed at the said godowns - cash disbursement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intal of sugar and then they cleared the goods from the factory to their storage places at Agra and Farrukhabad. They availed benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is whether they were eligible to take Cenvat credit on different services viz.: - (1) Rent of godown at Agra/ Farrukhabad. (2) Sugar handling charges at the said godowns. (3) Security services availed at the said godowns. (4) Insurance of sugar in transit. (5) Insurance of cash/money in transit. (6) Insurance of cashier. (7) Vehicles hire charges. (8) Insurance of Vehicles. (9) Installation charges of gay rope mask. 4. The Revenue was of the view that the above services availed by them were not in relation to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lighted) 5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that they were selling sugar from the godown at Agra and Farrukhabad. The above definition of input services allowed Cenvat credit for services utilised in relation to storage up to the place of removal. This expression is there in the said definition throughout the disputed period. 6. The Counsel points out that Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not define the expression 'place of removal'. However, Rule 2(p) of said Rules prescribes that whichever words and expressions are not defined in the said Rules but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Finance Act, 1994 the said definition will apply for the purpose of the said Rules. He Invites attention to the definition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Section 4. He further points out that this issue was considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in L.G. Electronics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2010] 28 STT 183 (New Delhi - CESTAT). He invites attention specifically to para 5 and para 6.1 of the said decision. 8. He has a further argument that the expression services in relation to "activity relating to the business" is specifically included in the definition of input services for the entire period in dispute even though the said expression has been deleted in the year 2011. Therefore his contention is that going by the clarification issued by the CBEC and by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics (supra) he should be entitled for services utilised by him for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and credit on such services cannot be allowed. He also argues that services availed after clearance of the goods from the factory cannot be construed as an "input service" and therefore credit on such services cannot be allowed. According to him, the place of removal in the case of sugar manufactured by the assessee is the factory of the appellant from where the goods are cleared on payment of duty. He also argued that the expression storage up to the place of removal cannot include storage of the goods at the godowns even if the godowns are considered as place of removal. 11. I have considered arguments on both the sides. I find that the question whether the place where goods are stored after clearance from the factory on payment of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o inputs. It was with reference to inputs used for generation of electricity, part of which was sold to grids outside the factory. This decision cannot applicable to input services and in fact there is nothing in the said decision which is repugnant to the interpretation given above. The standard of nexus has to be judged between input and manufactured goods will be different from the standards for input services because inputs are tangibles and input services are intangible. The definitions adopted for inputs and input services at Rule 2(k) and Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reflect different standards. Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically includes many post manufacturing activities like service relating to sales, promotio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
