Revenue's Appeal Denied: Cenvat Credit on Courier & C&F Agents Upheld

The appeal by the Revenue challenging the allowance of cenvat credit on courier and C&F agent services was rejected. The judge found that the services were eligible for credit based on previous judgments and the pre-amendment rules. The judge also considered a circular from the Board regarding appeals for amounts less than Rs.1,00,000 and dismissed the appeal due to the amount involved being Rs.95,009.

---

---

Issues involved: Eligibility of cenvat credit on courier and C&F agent services prior to 01.03.08.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the allowance of cenvat credit on service tax paid by the respondent for courier and C&F agent services. The first appellate authority had allowed the credit based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a specific case. The Revenue contended that the services availed were not eligible for cenvat credit as they were utilized after goods were cleared from the factory premises, which is beyond the place of removal. The Revenue relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings and argued that the services were not related to the manufacture of finished goods. The advocate for the respondent cited judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat to support their case.

Upon careful consideration, the judge noted that the issue pertained to the eligibility of cenvat credit for services availed before the amendment of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01.03.08. The judge found that the judgments relied upon by the first appellate authority and the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat were applicable to the case at hand. Based on these authoritative judicial pronouncements and precedents, the judge found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

Additionally, the judge acknowledged a circular from the Board directing field formations not to file appeals to the Tribunal for amounts less than Rs.1,00,000. Since the amount involved in this appeal was Rs.95,009, the judge agreed with the counsel's submission that the appeal should be dismissed in limine as per the Board's circular. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced in court.

---