‘Courier service’ is input service, if ownership of goods remains with sender till delivery

CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH

Grindwell Norton Ltd.

versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

Order Nos. A/127/2012/SMB/C-IV & S/204/2012/SMB/C-IV

Application No. E/S/986 of 2012

Appeal No. E/702 of 2012

May 25, 2012

ORDER

1. This appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No. No.US/120/RGD/2012 dated 24/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.

2. The appellant, M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd., supplied samples to the customers through courier and they claimed Canvat credit of the service tax paid on courier service. The credit was denied on the ground that the appellant did not produce documentary evident to show that courier charges are part of the price charged and the ownership of the goods was with the appellant and the place of removal was the premises of the recipient.

3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the appellant has documentary evidence to substantiate their claim and submitted copies of the invoices/purchase orders in respect of the transactions involved, which clearly indicate that the courier charges are part of the price charged from the customers and the ownership of the goods remained with the appellant till such time the goods were handed over to the buyers. Therefore, she submitted that the matter be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority.

4. The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue does not have any objection.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. As the issue lies in a very narrow compass, I take up the appeal itself for disposal after granting stay against the dues adjudged.

6. The only ground for objection of Cenvat credit is the appellant did not produce the documentary evidence to show that the ownership remained with him till the goods were delivered at the premises of the customer and the courier charges were part of the price charged for the goods. Inasmuch as the appellant has all the necessary documents and want an opportunity to produce the same before the assessing authority, I remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to consider the documents to be submitted by the appellant in this regard and thereafter, pass an order as to the eligibility or otherwise of the Cenvat credit. Needless to say the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity for producing all relevant documents and be heard the matter before final decision is taken. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of accordingly.