9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplying the parts and accessories manufactured by it to M/s. Hero Moto Corp Ltd., Neemrana along with other buyers. On scrutiny of cenvatable invoices the team also observed that appellant wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.25,658/- during the period December 2015 to August 2016 on various bills raised by M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Neemrana for penalty charged in the name of segregation of defective components i.e. finished goods of the assessee at the site of M/s. Hero Moto Corp. The team observed that the service is not related to manufacturing activity of the appellant in terms of defects of import services contained under Rue 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 819 dated 22.08.2019 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 3 of the said Rules. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi vs Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2009 (1) TMI-129 CESTAT-Ahmadabad] wherein it was held that it is not necessary for the eligible input service to have been rendered at the factory of manufacturer itself. 4. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. New Holland Construction Equipment (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ujjain, [2021 (8) TMI 963] wherein it was held that Cenvat credit on amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellants manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to manufacture of final product and clearance of final product up to place of removal. No infirmity is impressed upon in the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) which are based upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. The appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties perusing the records, it is observed and held as follows: The appellant is manufacturing parts and accessories of two /four wheelers as their final products and are clearing them to M/s. Hero Moto Corp. under a contract vide which the buyer i.e M/s. Hero Moto Corp. had reserved the right to reject the defective material where the defect was not arising from mishandling. Accordingly, M/s. Hero Moto Corp. the buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; [but excludes], - service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services) in so far as they are used for - construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle], in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods; or [(BA) service of general insurance busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit, however, if and only if, those are provided in relation to the manufacture either directly or indirectly. 8. From the facts of the present case, the activity in question is not provided by the appellant nor by anybody else on his behalf. It is rather the buyer of the appellant who himself has undertaken the responsibility of segregating such defective pieces where defect was not arising out of mis-handling and has charged the compensation in form of penalty from the appellant for undertaking such an activity. This particular fact is sufficient to hold that the activity was performed by the buyer for himself, as such cannot be called as eligible input service in terms of section 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The activity in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the 25th March, 1986, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 547(E), dated the 25th March 1986, and received by the for use in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final product, on or after the 10th day of September, 2004." 9. The perusal thereof makes it abundantly clear that any service to be eligible for Cenvat credit under this Rule is to be the one which has been received by the manufacturer for manufacturing final product. But the activity in question is the activity undertaken by the buyer of the manufacturer that too to ensure his right as he got reserved between the contracting parties for not receiving the damaged goods. From no stretch of imagination, said activity performed by the buyer can be called as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
