Appeal Dismissed: No Cenvat Credit for Loading/Unloading Services

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of Cenvat credit for loading and unloading services at the transshipment point. The court found that the services lacked nexus with the manufacturing business activity of the appellant and that the plea of time-bar for Cenvat credit demand was not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit for services of loading and unloading of finished goods at transshipment point.
2. Nexus of the service availed with the business activity.
3. Time-barred plea for Cenvat credit demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of glass bottles, availed services of manpower supply for loading and unloading of finished goods at a transshipment point in New Delhi. The Department issued a show cause notice for denial of Cenvat credit, recovery of the amount with interest, and imposition of a penalty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the loading and unloading service at the transshipment point is related to their business activity and falls under the definition of 'Input Service.' They contended that the loading and unloading charges are included in the value of goods on which duty has been paid. The appellant presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate to support their claim. However, the Department asserted that the service received after goods clearance from the factory gate, the acknowledged place of removal, lacked nexus with the manufacturing business activity of the appellant.

3. The judge examined the submissions and records, noting that the service at the transshipment point was indeed availed after goods removal. Citing a judgment from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was established that 'activity relating to the business' in the definition of 'input service' pertains only to manufacturing activities, not trading. As the service in question was post-removal and not directly linked to manufacturing, the denial of Cenvat credit was deemed appropriate. Additionally, the absence of invoices showing duty payment on expenses at the transshipment point further supported the decision to deny the credit.

4. Addressing the plea of time-bar for Cenvat credit demand, the appellant claimed no willful misstatement or suppression of facts, stating that they had disclosed the credit availed in their ER-1 returns. However, as the ER-1 returns were not provided to demonstrate specific disclosure of the credit for services at the transshipment point, the judge found no merit in the time-barred argument and upheld the impugned order.

5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of Cenvat credit for the loading and unloading services at the transshipment point, as the service lacked nexus with the manufacturing business activity of the appellant, and the plea of time-bar for Cenvat credit demand was not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

---