Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

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

MANU/CS/0076/2022

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.

Tags : CENVAT CREDIT   INPUT SERVICE   ADMISSIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved