Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 380 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - job-work - input services - courier services - place of removal - April 2005 and September 2009 - HELD THAT:- ‘Courier service’ was undisputedly, utilised for shipment of samples. Admittedly, the samples themselves are not the finished product and the availment of ‘courier service,’ even if for dispatch of samples is an expenditure that goes into the value of the final product. Though ‘courier services’ are utilised for despatch of samples, ‘transportation’ is an entirely different taxable entry, and the transportation that is referred to in the said definition pertain to tax on transportation of goods by road. There is also no doubt that the disputed CENVAT credit is related to manufacture of the finished goods. On a plain reading of the provisions of rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the facts and circumstances of the present dispute, along with superfluity, of one to one correlation between ‘input services’ and ‘output,’ it would appear that the availment is not incorrect in law - The denial of CENVAT credit on availment of services of courier is not in accordance with law and must be set aside. However, in relation to the activity on which tax was discharged by the supplier of business auxiliary service, we find that the coverage of business auxiliary service cannot be held to extend to such activity for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The fact that there had been regular audits does not anywhere hide the suppression of relevant information which could have been laid to crystallisation of tax liability. Audit can only unearth which is declared and which is on record - plea of limitation does not merit acceptance. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|