Tribunal Upholds Cenvat Credit for Courier and Mobile Services

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the eligibility of both Courier Services and Mobile Services for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal cited precedents supporting the admissibility of service tax paid on these services, emphasizing that activities related to the business of manufacturing final products qualified for credit on courier services and that mobile phone services used for company work were considered input services.

---

---

Issues:
Whether Courier Service and Mobile service availed by the manufacturer are eligible as input service for Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was whether the Courier Service and Mobile service availed by the manufacturer between April 2008 to June 2011 could be considered as input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allowing the manufacturer to claim credit for the service tax paid on these services. The Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly examined the matter and provided detailed reasoning for considering both Courier Services and Mobile Services as eligible for Cenvat credit.

For Courier Services, the Commissioner noted that the appellant used courier services for various business activities related to the manufacture of final products, such as dispatching business correspondence, sending bills and documents, procurement of raw materials, export of finished goods, and sending samples to customers. The Commissioner referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which recognized outward transport services used by manufacturers as falling within the definition of Input Service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner concluded that all activities related to the business of manufacturing final products made the credit on courier services admissible.

Regarding Mobile Services, the appellant provided mobile phones to senior executives for business purposes, and the mobile services were utilized for various business activities like procurement, accounting, manufacturing, clearance of goods, export, and sales promotion. Citing precedents like the case of M/s. J.K. Sugar Limited, the Commissioner agreed that mobile phone services used for company work should be treated as input services. The Commissioner also highlighted that the definition of input services is broad, covering any activity used for business purposes, as endorsed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited.

The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's view and cited previous decisions supporting the eligibility of service tax paid on courier services and mobile phones for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal referenced the case of CCE & Cus. Vapi vs. Apar Industries Limited, where it was held that service tax on courier services is eligible for credit, a decision upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Additionally, the Tribunal mentioned the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's ruling in the case of Excel Crop Care Limited, affirming the eligibility of service tax paid on mobile phones for Cenvat credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the eligibility of both Courier Services and Mobile Services for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

---