AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval and hence, credit stands denied. In any case, the specific terms of remand by Hon'ble CESTAT vide its final order dated. 25.04.19 actually allowed the credit even if availed at depot, however, the limited purview of remand was to examine the documentary evidence. 1.1 That the short issues involved in the present dispute are regarding availability of Cenvat credit on various services availed by the Appellant as indicated below:- a. Whether the Cenvat Credit taken on proportionate basis by excluding the Credit amount involved in trading activity i.e. Cenvat Credit involved in trading activity was reduced from the total Credit available or not? b. Services used out of the factory gate i.e. at depot (which are also place of removal), the credit is prima facie admissible to the appellant but for want of documentary evidence as observed by CESTAT is tenable under the broader ambit of Central Excise Law or not? c. Whether various services availed by them fall in the ambit of "input service" in terms of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 or otherwise? 2. The point wise submissions of the party are as follows: - * Whether the Cenvat Credit taken on proportion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total credit available and the balance credit though available was expensed out by not availing the same. It is also not in dispute that while on proportionate basis, the credit required to be reversed/ expensed out was less, a higher amount stands not availed as credit/expensed out by the Appellant. This is being emphasised, since this was the only limited purpose for which the matter was remanded by Hon'ble CESTAT. (v) That once admittedly, the Appellant expensed out some portion of credit and availed lesser credit, owing to trading turnover, and when admittedly, such expensing out portion is higher than credit legally required to be paid/reversed, this is as good as maintaining separate accounts for the purpose of Rule 6 of CCR, 04. Anyway, the Appellant has in fact complied with Rule 6 of the CCR, 04 requirements inasmuch as they have proportionately reversed credit on common services used for manufacturing as well as trading activity, which was also reflected in their periodic returns as well, by taking less credit itself at the threshold. This is as good as maintaining separate accounts. As such, no further amounts stand outstanding or payable on this count anymore. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven on this count. (ii) Furthermore, all invoices are pertaining to services availed at or for the Appellant's manufacturing unit only which are favour of the Appellant unit to whom SCN is issued, meaning thereby that the document is otherwise a valid document. In any case, the specific terms of remand by Hon'ble CESTAT vide its final order dated. 25.04.19 actually allow the credit even if availed at depot, however, the limited purview of remand is to examine the documentary evidence. (iii) The that credit with respect to each of the services availed at the warehouse/godown is admissible on merits, as the same are Place of Removal, in view of various case laws. Reference can be made of the following case laws in this regard:- a) L.G. Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2010 (19) STR 340 (Tri.-Del)]-2010-TIOL-1048-CESTAT-DEL b) Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2014 (307) ELT 3 (Chattisgarh)]=2014-TIOL-1437-HC-CHHATTISGARH-CX c) Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-1 [2008 (10) STR 382 (Tri-Mumbai] 2008-TIOL-417-CESTAT-MUM d) Menon Piston Ltd. 2015(40) STR 283(Tri) e) Cantabi Retail India Ltd. 2018(17) GSTL 275(Tri), f) Sports & Leisure Appare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at depot is not eligible to the Appellant. Merely because duty is paid at the time when goods are cleared from the factory to depot, does not mean factory gate is place of removal. Such view is contrary to the above settled legal position, as well as various CBEC Circulars. * Whether various services availed by them fall in the ambit of "input service" in terms of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 or otherwise? (i) That the Appellant had produced various evidences such as invoices, CA Certificate as well as detailed explanation of each service and where such service was put to use, before the lower authorities. However, both the lower authorities without bothering to check single evidence, decided the issue on extraneous grounds. (ii) Most of the credit is denied on the grounds that the services were not used in factory but in warehouse which is not considered to be place of removal by revenue authorities. As regards the allegation that trading activity was undertaken at warehouse, again the above averments are reiterated that by taking lesser credit compared to the tax paid on invoices received, itself amounts to maintaining separate accounts and complying wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Credit Rules, 2004 and no other reason is adduced in the impugned order whatsoever to deny such credit. The proceedings therefore are limited to this ground as raised in the impugned order only. They also crave leave to adopt all submission made for the Appeal No. E/10799/2021 as to why Credit is eligible to the Appellant and why no penal action lies against them and in turn the present Appellant. More particularly, they adopt all averments qua Rule 6 of CCR, 04 compliance as well as credit relating to items appearing at Sr. No.1,2,4, 5, and 8 to ISSUE NO.3. 3.3 That given the interpretational issue involved, especially when the matter is well covered vide catena of decisions available on the issue, neither extended period of limitation can be invoked nor any penalty can be imposed on the Appellant. That the bona fide belief entertained by the Appellant cannot be doubted in the circumstances. 4. Learned AR, inter alia, pointed out that order has dealt with various terms of remand as per the order of this Tribunal in the first stage of litigation. However, when asked about various decisions indicated by the appellant and findings on the same, he agreed that the matter can be rem....