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 525 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - nexus of input services with the output services - HELD THAT:- The denial of cenvat credit on input services availed at the depot viz. accounting services, audit services, renting of immovable property and telecommunication services amounting to ₹ 96,464/- is not sustainable in law. Depot and branches play a crucial role for the manufacturers as orders have to be collected from customers and manufactured goods are stored prior to their sale. This facilitates higher volume for manufacturing at factory. The cenvat credit on input services availed at depot amounting to ₹ 96,464/- is allowed being input service. Similarly, denial of cenvat credit on GTA services from factory to depot and transit insurance from factory to depot are also allowed being input service. These services are used for removal of goods from the factory to depot for sale at depot. Therefore, the place of removal of goods is depot and transportation services up to the place of removal are covered under the inclusive part of the definition. CENVAT Credit - Clearing and Forwarding Services - HELD THAT:- These services are availed for the purpose of procuring inputs, exporting finished goods outside India, therefore these services are relating to procurement of inputs and transportation of goods up to the place of removal and are covered under the inclusive part of the definition of ‘input service’ and therefore the same is qualify as ‘input service’ - Credit allowed. Intellectual Property Right Services - HELD THAT:- The appellant pays royalty to the parent companies Ardex UK, Ardex-Anlagen and Ardex-Australia and the same is directly related to the manufacturing process of final products. Hence the credit relating to the Intellectual Property Right Service is eligible - credit allowed. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants are not liable to penalty on wrong availment of GTA services up to the customer’s premises because it was an interpretation issue - also there is no intent to evade - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|