TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25.03.1986 and received by the manufacturer for use in or in relation to manufacture of final product - Reliance placed in the case of MRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & ST. (LTU), CHENNAI [2014 (1) TMI 822 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that principal manufacturer is entitled to avail credit on services used by job worker manufacturing goods on behalf of the principal manufacturer availing exemption under N/N. 214/96-CE, dated 25.03.1986. CENVAT credit - Godown Maintenance - Held that: - The denial of credit in respect of these services on the ground that the service is provided outside the godown is not sustainable, as, input services need not necessarily be provided within the factory/godown, as held by the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have further denied the credit of service tax paid on Loading Unloading Charges (at job-workers' premises) on the ground that it is an expense of job work incurred during manufacture and which cannot be separately quantified as service for allowing credit. 3.2 Further, Cenvat credit has been denied on service tax paid on Godown Maintenance (wrongly mentioned as Outside Godown Maintenance) on the ground that service is outside the premises of factory and tax paid on Photography Service and availed based on ISD invoices, on the ground that no nexus stand proved with process of manufacture. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants have raised the following grounds in here defence:- 4.1 The job-workers for carrying out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification No.214/96-CE, dated 25.03.1986: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill Vs Interface Microsystems reported as 2016-TIOL-2457-CESTAT-CHD; and (b) MRF Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Chennai reported as 2013 (31) S.T.R. 689 (Tri-Chennai). 4.5 Further, once service tax paid by job-worker even though it was not required to be paid by them or, for that matter, the services were exempted Cenvat credit of service tax so paid by job-worker cannot be denied to the principal manufacturer, based on the following judgments:- (I) YG1 Industries (India) P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported as 2013 (30 S.T.R. 146 (Tri.-Mum.); (ii) Multi Organics Pvt L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating number of show-cause notices issued for the period Aug.' 10 to Apru'15, has held that credit of service tax paid on the job-charges as well as on various reimbursable expenses by the job-workers is admissible to the appellants, since the job-work activities are directly in relation to manufacture of final products. 4.8 With regard to Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Godown Maintenance, the appellants submit that the godown is used for storing input as well as finished goods and hence, the same is directly in relation to the manufacture of final products. The denial of credit in respect of these services on the ground that the service is provided outside the godown is not sustainable, as, input services need not nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
