2013 (1) TMI 408 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services rendered by CHA - denial as services rendered by them for clearance of goods for export - Held that - Held in favour of the appellant by relying upon the decisions in the case of Rolex Rings Pvt. Limited 2008 (2008 (2) TMI 770 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Limited 2008 (2008 (7) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), Excel Crop Care Limited 2007 (2007 (4) TMI 15 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), Rawmin Mining and Industries Limited (2008 (10) TMI 79 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and Colour Synth Industries Pvt. Limited (2009 (1) TMI 130 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) wherein held that in case of export on CIF/FOB basis, place of removal is load port hence service tax paid on CHA services is admissible as credit in view of the fact that the place of removal has to be considered as the port where the goods are put on board the ship or the aircraft as the case may be - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit of service tax paid on services rendered by CHA for export of goods.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order in appeal No. RKA/01/SRT-II/2011 dated 10.01.2011, concerning the denial of cenvat credit of the service tax paid on services rendered by a Customs House Agent (CHA) for the export of goods by the appellant. The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the appellant, citing various precedents such as Rolex Rings Pvt. Limited, Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Limited, Excel Crop Care Limited, Rawmin Mining and Industries Limited, and Colour Synth Industries Pvt. Limited. The factual matrix was undisputed, confirming that the credit sought to be rejected was the service tax paid by the CHA for clearance of goods for export. The appellate tribunal, after considering the precedents and the correctness of the first appellate authority's decision, concluded that the denial of cenvat credit was unwarranted. The tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the order was legally sound and did not exhibit any flaws. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

2. Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed the issue of denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid for services provided by a CHA for the export of goods. By analyzing relevant precedents and the factual matrix, the tribunal affirmed the decision of the first appellate authority, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and upholding the legality of the initial order. The judgment underscores the importance of considering established legal principles and precedents in resolving tax-related disputes, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome in line with applicable laws and regulations.