Cenvat Credit Confirmed for Clearing & Forwarding Services: Eligible Input Services Include Warehouses & Depots.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order denying Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agency services. It determined that the services were eligible input services under CCR 2004, as they were utilized until the place of removal, including warehouses and depots. The appeal was allowed, and the denial of credit was deemed unsustainable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agency service.
2. Determination of whether warehouse/depots are considered the place of removal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agency service
The appellant, engaged in cement and clinker manufacturing, was denied Cenvat credit for service tax paid on clearing and forwarding agency service. The Department alleged that the service was not an eligible input service under Rule 3 and 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice proposed the reversal of the availed Cenvat Credit amount, along with interest and penalties. The initial proposal was confirmed in the Order-in-Original No.50/2021, and the appeal against it was rejected in Order-in-Appeal No.139/2020. The appellant contended that the C & F Agency Service is an input service, citing precedents like Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Various decisions were relied upon to support the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the warehouse/dealer depots are considered the place of removal as per the CCR 2004 definition.

Issue 2: Determination of whether warehouse/depots are considered the place of removal
The Tribunal analyzed whether the warehouse/depots where the goods were transferred after manufacturing were indeed the place of removal. Referring to the definition in Rule 2 of CCR 2004, which includes warehouses and depots as places of removal, it was observed that the C & F Agency service was utilized for transit from the factory to these locations. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd., upheld by the Supreme Court, it was established that all input services received until the place of removal are eligible for Cenvat Credit. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit for the services received until the place of removal, and the denial of such credit was deemed unsustainable. The order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not followed judicial protocol.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order that denied Cenvat credit on the clearing and forwarding agency service.

---