2011 (1) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services of CHA - disallowed by the Revenue on the ground that the said service would not fall under the category of input service and that service cannot be related to business activities as it is being conducted at part i.e. beyond the place of removal - Activities relating to business are covered by the definition of input service and admittedly CHA and Surveyors services are relating to the export business. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice seems, while coming to a conclusion that some of the goods exported by the assessee are exempted goods and the appellants could not have availed Cenvat credit on activities relating to such goods - allegations were not made out in the show-cause notice. The findings of the lower authorities are required to be within the allegations raised in the show-cause notice and the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said allegations is beyond the show-cause notice, is undoubtedly not sustainable.

Issues Involved:
Cenvat credit eligibility for service tax paid on services of CHA for export of goods.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Cenvat Credit Eligibility
The main issue in this case is the eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit for the service tax paid on services provided by a Customs House Agent (CHA) for the export of goods. The Revenue disallowed the Cenvat credit, arguing that the services provided by the CHA did not fall under the category of input service as they were conducted beyond the place of removal. The appellant, supported by legal counsel, cited various Tribunal decisions and a High Court judgment emphasizing that services required for business activities should not be denied Cenvat credit. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, referred to previous decisions and circulars to conclude that services provided by the CHA until the port area are indeed related to business activities and thus qualify as input services. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped the scope of the show-cause notice by making findings on exempted goods, which were not part of the original allegations.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Place of Removal
The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of the place of removal in the context of exported goods. It was established that until goods are exported, the ownership remains with the seller, making the port area the place of removal for exported goods. This interpretation was supported by a Board circular, which clarified that when ownership remains with the seller until delivery at the destination point, the place of removal extends to that point. Therefore, services availed by the exporter until the port area are considered input services directly related to business activities, making them eligible for Cenvat credit.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Jurisprudence
The Tribunal relied on legal precedents, including a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, to support the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that services required for business activities, such as those provided by the CHA for export purposes, should not be denied Cenvat credit. By citing previous decisions and legal interpretations, the Tribunal reinforced the principle that services directly linked to business operations are integral to the concept of input services and should be eligible for Cenvat credit.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant's eligibility to avail Cenvat credit for the service tax paid on CHA services for the export of goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering services related to business activities as input services for the purpose of claiming Cenvat credit, emphasizing legal precedents and interpretations to support its decision.

← Previous Next →