MANGALAM CEMENT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset COD application is taken up, wherein it is submitted that since the appellant Manager had changed his job, he was not in a position to file the appeal within the period and hence there is a delay of 10 days. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, the delay is hereby condoned.

(2.) BOTH the applicants, one the company and the other its manager challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6 -10 -2006 which had held that they are ineligible for availing Cenvat credit in respect of services undertaken by them (business auxiliary service, cargo handling services and C and F agent services) in respect of the final product namely, cement cleared from their factory premises. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the depot cannot be taken as "place of removal" under the law. However, when the appellant brought out a circular dated 2 -2 -2006 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, according to which selling the goods from a depot was also eligible for the credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods up to such depot, the same was not entertained by the Commissioner. He rather found that the said circular was related to eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on goods transported from factory to depot. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, inputs service includes any service with reference to clearance of fined products. He also states that the credit was taken by them only up to depot and not beyond that point and hence taking the same ratio with regard to transportation of goods which was allowed by the Board, the other services would also become equally eligible.

(3.) HEARD both sides and went through the record. A perusal of the orders passed by the lower authorities indicates that they have not given adequate reasons for denying the service tax paid by the appellant to be credited. At this stage, one cannot pussyfoot around the argument that Board Circular dated 2 -2 -06 could be only with regard to the eligibility in terms of service tax paid on transportation from the factory and not with reference to any other service. The Tribunal's Zeitgeist demands reasons.