‘Courier service’ is input service, if ownership of goods sent remains with sender till delivery to customer & courier charges form part of goods sent
The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a remand order and he has clearly held that the refund was available in respect of all services except ‘Air Travel Agent service’. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission that the Commissioner’s (Appeals) order is a remand order. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not valid and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra) does not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In this case appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MG craft paper and they import waste paper and use the same in the manufacture of final product. The services received are in relation to the importation of waste paper such as container charges, handling charges incurred in the port etc.
It is not in dispute that every stage of conversion of thicker to thinner wire is a manufacturing activity. If that be so, all the units of the company are undertaking a manufacturing activity. Admittedly, all the units are separately registered with the Department. Therefore, all of them are registered manufacturers of Tungsten and Molybdenum wires. Each unit, therefore, has to maintain the relevant statutory records including CENVAT credit accounts.
As per explanation to Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, storage tanks have been specified as capital goods and, therefore, inputs which are used in the manufacture of capital goods are also eligible for CENVAT credit. It is not in dispute that the steel items such as M.S. angles, H.R. sheets have not been used in the construction of storage tank which is a capital goods therefore, CENVAT credit on these M.S. angle and H.R. Sheet cannot be denied.
It has been held by the lower authorities that unless an assessee is able to show that the input service has nexus with the manufacture of final product, the inclusive part would not be of any help. In this case, I find that the services have been obtained for the purpose of conducting audit of the process and change of raw material suitably and the same have been presented to GTZ to receive the grant so that the company can phase out the process, which cause depletion of ozone in the atmosphere.
It is not in dispute that the Bangalore office of the company was a registered input service distributor and it distributed input services under cover of valid invoices to the various manufacturing units, eight in number, which were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations (dutiable final products).
Service provider, namely, M/s.Aban Offshore Ltd., has paid the impugned tax amount under the category of Mining Service without disputing the same. As pointed out by the learned JCDR, it is settled law that unless the assessment has been disputed, no refund can be sanctioned vide the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Flock (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra).
Assessee is a 100% EOU and the disputed service tax related to import of services from foreign based commission agent. The assessee was required to pay the tax as a deemed service provider in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act. Since the services were clearly input services for the appellant, the assessee was eligible for credit of service tax if the same had been paid by them.
In this case, since as discussed above, the Renusagar Power Plant is a captive power plant of the Appellant’s manufacturing unit, the two have to be treated as one intergrated unit and therefore, the cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance policy for the power plant would be admissible.
