TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E/2800/11 2008-2009 4,26,032/- 3. E/2801/11 April 2009 to December 2009 2,28,008/ 4. E/2813/11 January 2010 to September 2010 61,978/- 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar. They paid excise duty on sugar at the applicable rate which was prescribed per quintal of sugar and then they cleared the goods from the factory to their storage places at Agra and Farrukhabad. They availed benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is whether they were eligible to take Cenvat credit on different services viz.: - (1) Rent of godown at Agra/ Farrukhabad. (2) Sugar handling charges at the said godowns. (3) Security services availed at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal;" (Clauses relevant to the dispute at hand are highlighted) 5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that they were selling sugar from the godown at Agra and Farrukhabad. The above definition of input services allowed Cenvat credit for services utilised in relation to storage up to the place of removal. This expression is there in the said definition throughout the disputed period. 6. The C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise Act will apply. He points out further that para -4 of the said circular clearly states that the said definition will apply even in cases of goods which are subjected to specific rates of duty or duty based on value prescribed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, notwithstanding the fact that the said expression is defined under Section 4 with a preamble that the definition is for the purposes of the said Section 4. He further points out that this issue was considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in L.G. Electronics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2010] 28 STT 183 (New Delhi - CESTAT). He invites attention specifically to para 5 and para 6.1 of the said decision. 8. He has a further argument that the expression services in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in relation to the manufacture" have many shades and would cover various situations based on the purpose for which the input is used. However, the specified input would become eligible for credit only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product." His contention is that going by the standard prescribed by the Apex court in the said case services involved has no nexus with the manufacturing activity and credit on such services cannot be allowed. He also argues that services availed after clearance of the goods from the factory cannot be construed as an "input service" and therefore credit on such services cannot be allowed. According to him, the place of removal in the case of sugar manufactured by the assessee is the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices only till the goods reaches the place of removal and not storage at the place of storage, the expression services in relation to storage up to the place of removal used in me inclusive part of the definition to input services becomes meaningless and it is not reasonable to adopt such an interpretation. 13. I also note that the decision of the apex court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) is with reference to inputs. It was with reference to inputs used for generation of electricity, part of which was sold to grids outside the factory. This decision cannot applicable to input services and in fact there is nothing in the said decision which is repugnant to the interpretation given above. The standard of nexus has to be judged b....