2012 (3) TMI 34 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of credit of service tax paid on various input services - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 100% EOU - services - transportation of goods from the factory to the port services of the CHA and terminal handling charges and similar other charges incurred within the port area Held that - Issue is already settled in the case of services of outward transportation and custom house agent in favor of assessee. See CST Vs. ABB Limited (2011 - TMI - 203985 - Karnataka High Court) CCE Vs. Rolex Rings P. Ltd. (2008 - TMI - 30898 - CESTAT Ahmedabad ). The other services are essentially of the same nature as that of custom house agent in the matter of eligibility for taking Cenvat credit Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether services like transportation of goods from the factory to the port, services of custom house agents, terminal handling charges, and similar other charges incurred within the port area can be considered as input services for claiming Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Analysis:
The appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture and export of wooden furniture, claimed a refund of Cenvat credit taken for service tax paid on various services. The Revenue objected to the refund, arguing that the services in question were not eligible for credit as input services. The counsel for the appellant relied on precedents to support the claim that transportation from the factory to the port and services of custom house agents are considered input services. Referring to the case law, the counsel argued that similar other services essential for exporting goods should also be considered as input services, as they are required for business purposes. The Revenue contended that while there are clear decisions on outward transportation and custom house agent services, other services lacked clarity and could not be classified as input services.

Upon considering the arguments, the judge found that the issue of outward transportation and custom house agent services had already been settled and that other services were essentially of the same nature as those services. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and granting them consequential benefits.