9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame factory for further processing and manufacture of final product. The appellant in respect of Service Tax paid on warehousing service availed the cenvat credit and same was informed vide two letters dated 16.02.2010 and 10.02.2011 to the Learned Jurisdictional superintendent of Central Excise and the Learned Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise about the availment of Cenvat Credit of the Service Tax paid on the storage/ warehouse services availed for storing the imported inputs. In the said letter it was also stated that Rule 8 of the Cenvat Cerdit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in their case. The said letters are annexed with the appeal paper. An EA-2000 audit was conducted on the Appellant's record and it was observed that the appellant has wrongly availed the credit of Service Tax in respect of the rent paid for warehouse / godown used for storing the imported inputs since the warehouse / godown had separated from Central Excise registration and were not registered as a first stage /second stage dealer by the appellant for storage of its goods, out of the total Cenvat Credit on storage and warehousing services which pursuant to the audit report, the appellant d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said services are clearly covered under the definition of input service. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex. & S.T.,Noida,-2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 319 (Tri.-All.) Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at Commissioner Vs. Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd-2019 (29) G.S.T.L J74 (S.C.) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., MEERUT-II- 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 140 (Tri. - All.) 2.1 He further submits that the Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rule was not invoked in the show cause notice, therefore, on this ground the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) could not have decided the matter. In this regard, he placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner Of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.- 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.). As regard the issue that if the input service is received out of the factory premises whether the same is eligible for Cenvat Credit. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Vs. C.C.Ex., Belapur- 2013 (32) S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said warehouse / godown was used for storage of inputs which are meant for use in the manufacture of final product. Both the lower authorities have denied the credit on the renting of immovable property service on the ground that the warehouse is located outside the premises of the factory. The appellant have not obtained permission under Rule 8 of Cevat Credit Rules, 2004 for storage of inputs outside the factory and the input service in question has no nexus with manufacture of final product, hence, does not qualify as input service defined under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On going through the Show cause notice, I find that the only allegation in the Show cause notices that since, the renting of immovable property service is not included in the definition of input service. Accordingly, the said service used by the appellant neither falls under scope definition of input service nor has nexus with manufacturing activity. However, in the adjudication order and order of Commissioner (Appeals) both the authorities have travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. In as much as the Cenvat credit was denied on the ground that the godown / warehouse where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Cenvat Credit on such input has been availed. In the present case, there is no allegation that the appellant have availed the Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs lying in warehouse outside the factory. Therefore, in the given facts Rule 8 is not applicable, moreover, as regard the Cenvat Credit in respect of input services Rule 8 does not come into the play, for the reason that as discussed above the location of the receipt of service is not material and Rule 8 is not relevant for the purpose of availing the Cenvat Credit on the input service namely renting of immovable property. The same issue has been considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. (Supra) Wherein question NO. (II) was framed as under:- "(II) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that services used in relation to storage of inputs outside the factory will not be eligible for credit as services are received outsider the factory?" The above question was answered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as under:- 5. Now at the outset it must be noted that Rule 3(1) allows a manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the manufacture of final products. The inclusive part of the definition enumerates certain specified categories of services. However, it would be farfetched to interpret Rule 2(l) to mean that only two categories of services in relation to inputs viz. for the procurement of inputs and for the inward transportation of inputs were intended to be brought within the purview of Rule 2(l). Rule 2(l) must be read in its entirety. The Tribunal has placed an interpretation which runs contrary to the plain and literal meaning of the words used in Rule 2(l). Moreover as we have noted earlier, whereas Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit of excise duty and Service Tax among others paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product, insofar as any input service is concerned, the only stipulation is that it should be received by the manufacturer of the final product. This must be read with the broad and comprehensive meaning of the expression "input service‟ in Rule 2(l).The input services in the present case were used by the appellant whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
