2013 (7) TMI 675 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows CENVAT Credit for C&F services, emphasizing nexus with business activities.

CCE Vadodara Versus M/s IDMC Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the respondent-assessee's right to avail CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid on C&F services, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ... CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid by the service provider on C&F services is availed as CENVAT Credit - Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 defines the input services which are used by provider of output taxable services and by the manufacturer for manufacturing of final product from the place of removal - Revenue s assertion is that C&F agent’s godown is not a place of removal and there must be nexus of manufacture and clearance of final product from the place of removal – Held that:- Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and there is no dispute that C&F agent services were availed by the respondent-assessee in respect of clearing and forwarding of their final product in the market. This activity can be considered as an activity in relation to business of the respondent-assessee – Also, similar decision was passed in the case Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Versus M/s. Inox India Limited[2013 (2) TMI 59 - CESTAT Ahmedabad ] – Credit available – Decided in favor of Assessee. Issues Involved:Denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid by service provider on C&F services availed by respondent-assessee.Analysis:The appeal pertains to the denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid by a service provider on C&F services utilized by the respondent-assessee. The issue revolves around whether the CENVAT Credit can be availed in such a scenario. The Revenue contested the allowance of the credit, arguing that the C&F agent's godown does not qualify as a 'place of removal' as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The crux of the matter lies in establishing a nexus between the input services and the output taxable services or the manufacturing process of the final product from the place of removal.The first appellate authority had set aside the denial of CENVAT Credit based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a relevant case. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, referenced a previous case involving a similar issue where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal found that the C&F agent services were indeed utilized by the respondent-assessee for clearing and forwarding their final product, which falls within the scope of activities related to the respondent-assessee's business.Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal concluded that the issue at hand aligns with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the previous judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal upheld the correctness and legality of the impugned order, stating that it does not warrant any intervention. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent-assessee.In summary, the judgment resolves the issue of denying CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid on C&F services by affirming the respondent-assessee's right to avail the credit based on the activities related to their business. The decision establishes the validity of claiming such credit in similar circumstances, guided by relevant legal interpretations and precedents.