Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Dcm Shriram Ltd vs Vadodara-Ii on 23 September, 2019
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO.3
Excise Appeal No.13098 of 2018
(Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-407-2018-19 passed by Commissioner (Appeals)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I)
M/s. Dcm Shriram Ltd ........Appellant
unit-shriram Alkali & Chemicals),749, Gidc Industrial Estate, Jhagadia,
Bharuch, Gujarat-393110.
VERSUS
C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodra-ii .......Respondent
1ST FLOOR... ROOM NO.101, NEW CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, VADODARA, GUJARAT-390023 APPEARANCE:
Sh. S. J. Vyas Proxy Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Govind Jha, Authorised representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR Final Order No. A/ 11815 /2019 DATE OF HEARING: 23.09.2019 DATE OF DECISION:23.09.2019 RAMESH NAIR The issue involved is that whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service.
2. Shri S. J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appeared as a Proxy Counsel for Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian and submitted written synopses in support of the appeal which is taken on record. As per the submission of the appellant, the Courier Service was used for dispatch of samples of Raw Materials and capital goods for testing, repairs etc. It was referred to a Chartered Accountant's Certificate dated 11.07.2018 which certifies that Courier Service has been used by the appellant for dispatch of samples of raw materials for testing outside factory and dispatch of some small capital goods for testing, repairs, renovation. Following Judgments were relied upon by the Appellant.
Modern Petrofils Dty Div & Ors. Vs. CCE 2017 (9) TMI 206 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD Haldyn Glass Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE 2017 (8) TMI1217 -
CESTAT AHMEDABAD
2|Page E/13098/2018
3. Shri Govind Jha Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that the Commissioner (appeals) confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit on the ground that whatever material was sent through Courier, there is no proof that the said goods have come back to the factory. Therefore, the credit was rightly denied by Commissioner (Appeal).
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. I find that the limited issue to be decided that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit on Courier Service. I find that the appellant claimed that the Courier Service was used for dispatch of office communication/documents and some time samples of Raw Material / Capital Goods for testing, repairs etc. Under the same set of facts this Tribunal has consistently taken a view that the Cenvat Credit in respect of Courier Service is admissible. The case of the appellant is supported by judgments cited by them in the case of Modern Petrofils Dty Div & Ors. & Haldyn Glass Ltd. & Ors. (Supra).
5. As regard the submission made by the AR there is no proof regarding return of the goods. I find it is not relevant as the issue involved is admissibility of Cenvat on Courier Service. The Courier Service was used in or in relation to manufacture and removal of goods. Therefore, the ground for denial that goods sent by Courier Service did not come back to the factory is not relevant.
6. Accordingly the Cenvat Credit is admissible. Impugned order is set aside appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court) (RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Kamakshi