2013 (12) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit. Revenue was of the view that after the amendment made in the definition of 'Input Services' at Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2008, the applicant could not have taken Cenvat credit on services used for removal of excisable goods beyond the factory gate. So Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of Cenvat credit taken on the above services. Based on such reasoning credit amounts of Rs.1,22,40,581/- on courier services and Rs.10,80,135/- on services of GTA were proposed to be denied for the period Jan'10 to Dec'10. Revenue also proposed to deny Cenvat credit on certain other services like banking services, catering services, security services etc., on which the amount involved is around Rs.30 lakhs. Tot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....applicant is satisfying all the three conditions. He points out that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T.431 (P&H) has upheld the clarification issued by CBEC in this regard. He points out that this clarification is in tandem with the amendment to Rule 2(l) made on 01.04.2008. That is to say, the circular clarified, even before the amendment that Cenvat credit was not available for removal from the place of removal and credit is available only for services for removal upto the place of removal. After clarifying the said position only they have laid down the three conditions and clarified that buyers premises will be considered as place of removal if the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R.97 (Kar.), it is clear that Cenvat credit cannot be allowed for clearances from the place of removal after 01.04.2008. He further relies on the decision of India-Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T.103 (Tri.-Chennai) where the Madras High Court refused to grant interim stay as reported in 2013 (288) E.L.T.A.23 (Mad.). He also relied on the Bombay Bench in the case of PMP Auto Components (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V reported in 2012 (284) E.LT.536 (Tri.-Mumbai) and on the decision of Madras Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2012 (27) S....