TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is admissible only in respect of services used for the removal of goods upto the place of removal - From the perusal of the records, it is not clear that whether all the courier services is used for removal of goods - As per the submission of Ld. Counsel, the courier service is used for sending documents or inward transportations as well as for outward transportation. Time Limitation - Held that:- he issue of service used for removal of goods there was a serious doubt. There were various conflicting judgments on the said issue - malafied intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the demand for extended period is hit by limitation - For the normal period in respect of courier services the demand will sustain only in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the same is not used for personal use. As regard the courier services, the same is used for sending goods, documents and parcels. He submits that the courier service is essential for the business and, hence, same is eligible. He submits that in various judgments, the tribunal has allowed the CENVAT credit in respect of all the aforesaid services. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Rent a Cab Service: 1. Aia Engineering Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Ahmedabad-III, Fuinal Order No. A/11320/2018 dated 12.06.2018, CESTAT (A/bad) 2. M/s. Welspun Corp Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Service Tax, Vadodara, Final Order No. A/11000-11001/2018 dated 08.05.2018, CESTAT, (A,bad) 3. M/s DCM Shriram Lt.d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TIOL-2230-CESTAT-MAD 17.M/s Lifelong Meditech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Gurgaon-II 2016-TIOL-1685-CESTAT-CHD 2.1 He further submits that the demand was issued invoking the extended period in as much as for the period 01/10/2013 to 31/08/2015, the show cause notice was issued on 15/02/2016. He submits that the issue was not free from doubt as on the services used for removal of goods such as courier, there were various conflicting judgments and the matter was referred to the larger bench. Finally the issue was decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultratech 2018 (9) GSTL 337-SC. He submits that as per the board s circular dated 23/08/2007, the appellant was entitled for the CENVAT credit which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. M/s. Welspun Corp Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Service Tax, Vadodara, Final Order No. A/11000-11001/2018 dated 08.05.2018, CESTAT, (A,bad) 3. M/s DCM Shriram Lt.d Vs. CCE ST- Vadodara-II, Final Order No. A/10834/2018 dated 25.043.2018, CESTAT (A/bad) 4. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-2411-CESTAT-MAD 5. Technocraft Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioenr of Central Excise Thane-1 2018-TIOL-1738-CESTAT-MUM 6. Commissioner Vs. Transpek Industry Ltd. 2018(12) GSTL 29 (Guj.) 7. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune Vs. M/s Nihilent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-2696-CESTAT-Mum 8. M/s Marvel Vinlys Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ech Cement Ltd. (supra) decided the issue. It is also a fact that the appellant was availing the credit relying on the Board s Circular dated 23.08.2017 which was not withdrawn by the Revenue. In these circumstances, malafied intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the demand for extended period is hit by limitation. The same is set aside being time barred. For the normal period in respect of courier services the demand will sustain only in respect of courier services which is used for removal of excisable goods beyond the place of removal. Therefore, the demand in respect of courier services for the normal period of one year needs to be requantified by the Adjudicating authority. As a result, the demand in respect of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
