MP HC: Wife’s Refusal to Have Physical Relationship With Husband, Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Ori. HC: Re-Imprisonment of Prematurely Released Convict Can’t be Ordered Unless Release Challenged  ||  Ker. HC: IO Mixes Contraband Found in Separate Packs, Bail Granted to Accused Booked Under NDPS Act  ||  Tripura High Court: Accused Not Entitled to Bail on Mere Filing of Chargesheet  ||  Guj. HC: Student Allowed to Write Exams, Shortage of Attendance Condoned  ||  Ker. HC: AO Can’t Reopen Assessment in Block Period of 6 Years if Absence of Incriminating Materials  ||  Tel. HC: Existence & Validity of Arb. Agreement Must be Determined u/s 11(6) of A&C Act by Court  ||  Tel. HC: While Releasing Amount Under S. 19 of MSME Act, Reasons Must be Assigned by Courts  ||  Ker. HC: Settling Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape Would Seriously Impact Society  ||  Del. HC: Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal Can be Extended by Court, Even After its Expiry    

Matrix Comsee Pvt Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (06 Apr 2022)

Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service is admissible


Service Tax

The facts of the case is that, during the disputed period i.e. April 2015 to June 2017, the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the DHL Express India Ltd., and Fedex Express Transport and Supply Chain Service. However, during the course of audit, the department objected to the issue of availment of Cenvat credit on the ground that, service provider had collected the consignment from the Appellant's factory gate and delivered the goods at the overseascustomers, hence, services which were rendered and received by the Appellant are beyond the place of removal and not covered under the definition of "Input Service" as per the definition given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Based on the audit report, the Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, seeking for disallowance of alleged irregularly availed Cenvat credit. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, vide Order-In-Original, wherein the proposal made in the show cause notices were dropped. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, department has filed Appeal. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order -in-appeal decided the matter against the Appellant and confirmed the Cenvat demand. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order- in-appeal, the Appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

The Appellant claimed that the Courier Service was used for delivery of their export goods from their factory premises to the premises of customers abroad. The impugned service was used by the Appellant for export of goods. In these circumstances, the Appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on input service namely Courier Services which have been availed by the Appellant in the course of their business to export of goods. further, in number of cases Tribunal has consistently taken a view that Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service is admissible. There is no merit in impugned order -in-appeal, consequently the same is set aside. Appeal allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved