2011 (8) TMI 120 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - 100% EOU - Cenvat credit - GTA service - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax LTU Bangalore vs. ABB Limited (2011 -TMI - 203985 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) high court has dealt with the definition of input services - Held that the said input service was included in the early part of the definition 2(1)(ii) - the issue now stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee and respondents in this case and in no more res-integra

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax credit for a 100% EOU exporting goods under bond.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against orders rejecting the refund claim of service tax credit taken by the respondent, a 100% EOU exporting goods under bond. The respondent availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods and other services and claimed a refund. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim stating that credit of service tax paid on services is not eligible as input. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the impugned order before him.

The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeal) failed to provide reasons for considering the Port as the place of removal, emphasizing that the place of removal may vary for different parties. They argued that services at the stage of clearance and from the place could not be considered as input services. Additionally, they claimed that cenvat credit on service tax paid on certain services was not eligible for a refund as they were not connected to the manufacture of final products and their clearance from the place of removal.

In response, the counsel for the respondents referred to the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, citing a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka and another judgment by the Gujarat High Court. They argued that these judgments supported their position, indicating that the issue was well-established in favor of the assessee and respondents.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the cited judgments, the Tribunal found that the High Courts had upheld the Larger Bench decision regarding the interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was conclusively settled in favor of the respondents, and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal) was deemed correct and legally sound. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were disposed of as they aligned with the impugned orders.