2012 (11) TMI 871 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows CENVAT Credit for bank commission charges

Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat Versus M/s Vishal Malleables Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat Versus M/s Vishal Malleables Ltd. - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 234 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , 2016 (41) S.T.R. 857 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding bank commission charges for collection of sale proceeds of goods and eligibility for CENVAT Credit.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent to claim CENVAT Credit for bank commission charges incurred during the period of April 2008 to February 2009. The respondent had taken the CENVAT Credit of the bank commission charges for the collection of sale proceeds of their goods. The Revenue contended that such charges were not eligible for credit as they were related to the sale proceeds of finished goods, which were considered to be beyond the place of removal. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal based on Notification No.19/2009-ST, stating that bank services in relation to business activities fell under the definition of input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The authority cited previous Tribunal decisions to support the decision.The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, found that the Service Tax charged by the bank was not for the collection of sale proceeds of export goods but rather for the business activities of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was entitled to claim refund of Service Tax paid on specified services used in export of goods as per Notification No.19/2009-ST. The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on bank commission charges based on the definition of Input Service in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the provisions of the notification. The Tribunal also referred to previous decisions supporting the appellant's position.The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate authority's decision was in line with the law and highlighted that previous Tribunal decisions, such as Jeans Knit Pvt.Ltd. and JSW Steel Ltd., had addressed similar issues favorably for the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer open to debate, considering the precedents and legal interpretations.In light of the above analysis and the legal principles discussed, the Tribunal found the appeal filed by the Revenue to be without merit and rejected it. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order as correct, legal, and free from any defects, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.