Facts
The Issue before the Hon’ble Tribunal was whether mobile services and courier services availed by the manufacturer for the period April 2008 to June 2011 would be available as input services in term of Rule 2(I) of CCR, 2004 so as to enable CENVAT credit thereof.
Held
The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) and decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) had decided that mobile phones were provided by the company to its senior executives so that they can carry out business activities/job performance easily. The mobile services were utilised/consumed in or in relation to performance of their duties such as purchasing/procurement of inputs or capital goods or consumables, accounting of materials, manufacture of the finished goods, clearance of finished goods, export of finished goods, marketing of goods manufactured, sales promotion etc. Further, the mobile connections were also in the name of the company and hence the bills were raised by the service providers in the name of the company which paid such bills. Therefore, CENVAT credit of mobile services was allowed. As regards, courier services, it was found that assessee received courier services for dispatch of various business correspondence to the supplier/customer/branch office/ agents office etc. including sending various bills and other related documents to the head office for accounting and internal audit purposes and also for procurement of raw materials, export of the finished goods and for domestic sale and for sending samples of the finished goods to the customers. Commissioner (Appeals) therefore held that in different ways, the courier services were used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products. Therefore, CENVAT credit of courier services was also allowed.