ROLEX RINGS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T.-RAJKOT

EXCISE Appeal No. 10515 of 2020-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-073-2020 dated 30.06.2020

passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT]

 

ROLEX RINGS PVT LTD

VERSUS

C.C.E. & S.T.-RAJKOT

APPEARANCE:

Shri P. V. Sheth, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri. Vijay G Iyengar, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the

Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU

FINAL ORDER NO.A / 10045 /2023

DATE OF HEARING: 03.11.2022

DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2023

RAJU

This appeal has been filed by M/s Rolex Pvt Ltd against denial of CENVAT

Credit on inspection and warehousing services.

Learned Commissioner for the appellant pointed out that the identical

issue in appellant’s own case has been decided by Tribunal in their favour vide

Final Order No. A/11400-11401/2019 dated 25.07.2019, the said order has

also been accepted by Revenue.

Learned AR relied on the impugned order. No appeal has been filed

against the earlier order of Tribunal dated 25.07.2019, only on account of

monetary limit prescribed in the litigation policy of Revenue.

I have considered the rival submission, I find that the earlier rder of

Tribunal in para 4 and 5 observed as under:

“4. Heard both sides and perused the record. I find that there is

no dispute to the fact that warehousing service and inspection

service were received by the appellant and payment of the same

was also borne by the appellant. These charges were not collected

by the appellant from the customers. Since the warehousing facility

availed by the appellant for storing the goods and from there the

goods were sold to the customer, it cannot be said that the goods

were sold from the factory gate. As regards the inspection charges,

as per the agreement with the customers, the appellant are under

obligation to carryout inspection at the customer’s end in respect

of the goods manufactured and supplied by them. The charges of

the inspection is also borne by the appellant. In such case, the sale

is clearly on FOR basis i.e. customer’s place. Moreover, the

inspection charge is not a service which is used for removal of the

goods. The expenses towards both the services stand included in

the assessable value. Therefore, 4 Excise Appeal No. 11224, 11225

of 2018 both the services were clearly used in or in relation to the

manufacture and sale of the goods. The judgement cited by the ld.

AR, I observe that, in Para 4 of the said judgment, it is categorically

stated that value of inspection charges is not included in the

assessable value whereas, in the present case, the inspection

charge has been included in the assessable value. Therefore the

facts in the case Kapilansh Dhatu Udyog Limited (supra) are

different from the present case.

5. 5. As per above discussion and findings, I am of the view that in

given facts of the present case, the appellant are entitled for the

Cenvat credit in respect of warehousing and in inspection services.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and appeals are

allowed.”

4.1 The appellant has vide letter dated 07.11.2022, produced certain

invoices. From the said invoices, it is apparent that no separate charges have

collected for the said services of inspection and warehousing. In these facts,

it is apparent that such cost or included in the assessable value of goods

cleared by them. Therefore in these circumstances CENVAT Credit cannot be

denied.

Relied on the earlier order in the Tribunal dated 25.07.2019. The appeal

is allowed.

(Pronounced in the open Court on 12.01.2023 )

(RAJU)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL)