9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- The issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in the favour of the assessee in the case of CCE, Delhi-III vs. Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd [2015 (7) TMI 930 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the services in question had been used for brining into existence an immovable property and not for the manufacture of the final product. The said services cannot be said to be remotely connected to the final product - credit allowed. Courier Service - Held that:- Courier Service was admittedly taken for transportation of goods for sale to customers. The amount has been paid as service tax to its vendors for providing the taxable service of ‘Courier Services’ for the purposes of transportation of finished goods (spare parts) to its distributors/dealers - the amount of input credit availed before 01.04.2008 is admissible to the appellant as the same is linked with the activity of business or manufacture - However, the input service in relation to outward transportation beyond the place of removal is not included in the definition of ‘input service’ after 01.04.2008 - credit allowed in part. Custom House Agent Service - the same is denied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Outdoor Catering Service (3) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (4) Courier Service (Outward) (5) Custom House Agent Service (6) Transport of Goods by Road (7) Manpower Supply Agency Service (8) Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (9) Architects Service (10) Telephone Service A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 24.04.2009 disallowing the Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,55,88,540/- along with recovery of interest and proposing equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was adjudicated and the entire duty along with interest was confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was imposed. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Business Support Services were in relation to verification of the goods and receipt of the goods and the same are specifically covered in the definition of input service . In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Delhi- III vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 2017 (49) STR 261 (P H) and the judgment of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the Business Support Service has been used for logistic support services like verification of goods, receipt of goods etc., which is covered in the definition of input service at the given time. We also find that in the case of Castrol India Limited (supra), the Division Bench of this Tribunal has held that the credit of business support service is admissible in the light of decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra). By following the same, we hold that the input service credit in business support service is admissible to the appellant. 6.2 As for Outdoor Catering Services, the same has been held to be admissible service for the purpose of input service credit in the light of decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we hold that the input service credit is admissible to the appellant for this service. 6.3 As for the Commercial or Industrial Construction Service used for the construction of the factory, the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in the favour of the assessee in the case of CCE, Delhi-III vs. Bellsonica Auto Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilder before grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer. 11. If in fact the said services were not covered by Rule 2(l), it would not have been necessary to introduce the amendment. It is clear, therefore, that prior to the amendment the setting up of a factory premises of a provider for output service relating to such a factory fell within the definition of input service.‟ The amendment of 2011 is not retrospective and is not applicable to the respondents‟ case. 6.4 The input credit relating to Courier Service was admittedly taken for transportation of goods for sale to customers. The amount has been paid as service tax to its vendors for providing the taxable service of Courier Services for the purposes of transportation of finished goods (spare parts) to its distributors/dealers. We find that the amount of input credit availed before 01.04.2008 is admissible to the appellant as the same is linked with the activity of business or manufacture in view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provisions . Similarly, in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd v. CCE Bhavnagar - 2007-TOIL-429-CESTAT-AHM = 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tribunal), it was held that after the final products are cleared from the place of removal, there will be no scope of subsequent use of service to be treated as input. The above observations and views explain the scope of the relevant provisions clearly, correctly and in accordance with the legal provisions. In conclusion, a manufacturer/consignor can take credit on the Service Tax paid on outward transport of goods up to the place of removal and not beyond that. In this connection, the phrase place of 8.2 removal‟ needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and the applicable provisions. The phrase place of removal‟ has not been defined in CENVAT Credit Rules. In terms of sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the said rules, if any words or expressions are used in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and are not defined therein but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they shall have the same meaning for the CENVAT Credit Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. The phrase place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned explaining the place of removal‟ as defined under Section 4 of the Act, there is no quarrel upto this stage. However, the important aspect of the matter is that Cenvat Credit is permissible in respect of input service‟ and the Circular relates to the unamended regime. Therefore, it cannot be applied after amendment in the definition of input service‟ which brought about a total change. Now, the definition of place of removal‟ and the conditions which are to be satisfied have to be in the context of upto‟ the place of removal. It is this amendment which has made the entire difference. That aspect is not dealt with in the said Board‟s circular, nor it could be. 12 . Secondly, if such a circular is made applicable even in respect of post amendment cases, it would be violative of Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and such a situation cannot be countenanced. 13 . The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer‟s premises was not admissible to the respondent. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue and against the respondent-assessee, we are of the opinion that the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue in absence of any material to indicate suppression on the part of the respondent-assessee. It is not in dispute that there was no suppression nor any misrepresentation in respect of Cenvat credit availed by the respondent-assessee in respect of these services. By following the above judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court, we hold that the input service credit for Custom House Agent Service is admissible to the appellant. 6.6 As for the input credit for transport of goods by road, the same pertains to the period prior to 01.04.2008 (prior to the amendment in 2008), hence, the same is admissible to the appellant in view of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Guntur vs. The Andhara Sugars Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held as under: 8. As can be seen from the reading of the aforesaid portion of the circular, the issue was examined after keeping in mind judgments of CESTAT in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2017 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tribunal)] and M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
