2016 (7) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeal for cenvat credit on courier & record keeping charges under Cenvat Credit Rules

M/s Perfettti Van Meele India Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi - IV

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the denial of cenvat credit for courier services and record keeping charges from December 2013 to ... Input service credit denied on Courier services and record keeping charges service - period of December’ 2013 to November’ 2014 - Held that:- The appellant has explained the uses of courier services for procurement for small engineering items, raw material, testing equipment. As the usage has not been contravened by tangible evidence by the revenue. In that circumstances the courier services have been availed by the appellant are related to the manufacturing activity therefore the appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit on courier services charges. With these observations, the cenvat credit availed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the impugned order for taking the cenvat credit on courier services charges. With regard to record keeping charges find that these records are the part of accounting and auditing to the appellant and accounting or auditing service forms the part of Rule 2(I) of cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the record keeping charges are entitled as input service in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, cenvat credit to the appellant on record keeping charges allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against denial of input service credit for courier services and record keeping charges for the period of December 2013 to November 2014.Analysis:The appellant contended that courier services were essential for various manufacturing activities and should be eligible for cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority had previously allowed cenvat credit for courier services post-2011, which the revenue had accepted. The appellant argued that courier charges were directly or indirectly related to their manufacturing activities, making them eligible for cenvat credit. The Ld. Counsel also argued that record keeping charges were necessary for compliance with Central Excise provisions and the Income Tax Act, and these charges included both storage and retrieval of documents. The appellant claimed that these charges were akin to audit and accounting services, which had been allowed for cenvat credit in the past.On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the appellant's contentions, stating that courier services had no nexus with the manufacturing activities of the appellant. Similarly, the Ld. AR argued that record keeping charges were not relevant to the manufacturing activities and, therefore, the appellant should not be entitled to cenvat credit for these charges. The Ld. AR also highlighted that the adjudicating authority had the right to deny cenvat credit for subsequent periods even if it had been granted for an earlier period.After hearing both sides, the issue to be decided was whether the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit on courier services and record keeping charges post-01.04.2011. The Tribunal found that the courier services were indeed related to the manufacturing activities of the appellant, as they were used for procurement, delivery, and testing of various items. Since there was no tangible evidence to the contrary presented by the revenue, the cenvat credit on courier services charges was allowed. Regarding record keeping charges, the Tribunal considered them to be part of accounting and auditing services, falling within the ambit of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit on record keeping charges as well. Consequently, the impugned order denying cenvat credit on both courier services and record keeping charges was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.