9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2009 to December 2009 2,28,008/ 4. E/2813/11 January 2010 to September 2010 61,978/- 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar. They paid excise duty on sugar at the applicable rate which was prescribed per quintal 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/m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal;" (Clauses relevant to the dispute at hand are highlighted) 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even in cases of goods which are subjected to specific rates of duty or duty based on value prescribed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, notwithstanding the fact that the said expression is defined under Section 4 with a preamble that the definition is for the purposes of the said 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, the specified input would become eligible for credit only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product." His contention is that going by the standard prescribed by the Apex court in the said case services involved has no nexus with the manufacturing activity 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the place of removal used in me inclusive part of the definition to input services becomes meaningless and it is not reasonable to adopt such an interpretation. 13. I also note that the decision of the apex court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) is with reference to 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
