COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. INTERFACE MICROSYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against the impugned order. The facts of the case are that respondent is a manufacturer of Electronic Apparatus for switching Vehicles. They are procuring inputs and filing courier bills of entry. Revenue is of the view that courier bill of entry is not a proper document to avail Cenvat credit as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, it was also observed that courier service is an activity of post manufacturing, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to take Cenvat credit thereon. It was also sought to be denied input service credit on repair and maintenance for security service, insurance and repairs of fax machine. The adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit. Consequently, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed. On appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), he allowed Cenvat credit by setting aside the adjudication order.

(2.) IN this case, the first issue is for denial of Cenvat credit on the strength of consolidated Courier Bills of Entry. As per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit is available on the strength of bill of entry and in the said rules there is no classification of bills of entry. The classification made by the Revenue is imaginary in the Courier Bill of Entry, an Ordinary Bill of entry or a Special Bill of Entry. It is not in dispute that respondent has taken the Cenvat credit on the strength of Courier Bills of Entry. Therefore, I hold that the Courier Bill of Entry is a specified document as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the respondent has taken the Cenvat credit correctly.

(3.) CENVAT credit was sought to be denied by the Revenue on courier service on the premise that the same is post manufacturing activity. In Cenvat Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit on the input services is available if the same is availed by assessee in the course of their business of manufacturing of excisable goods. Admittedly, the respondent has availed the service in the course of their business of manufacturing. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the Cenvat credit on courier service. For repair of fax machine, security service and insurance of Omni Van, all these have been used by the respondent in the course of their business in manufacturing. Therefore, I hold that they are entitled to Cenvat credit. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. Therefore appeal is dismissed.