Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 632 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit Wrongly availed Cenvat credit - Cenvat credit of service Tax on CHA services - Input Service Rule 2(1) CCR, 2004 Place of removal in case of export of goods Revenue argue that once the goods are manufactured and cleared from the factory premises, the place of removal is a factory premises and not the port Held that - Following the decision in assessee s own case Micro Inks Ltd. (2012 (6) TMI 122 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) on identical issue decides in favour of assessee. In favour of assessee
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of availing cenvat credit on Custom House Agent Services for export of goods. 2. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding input services. 3. Determining the place of removal for availing cenvat credit on outward transportation services. 4. Comparison of the current case with a previous judgment on a similar issue. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal was filed against an order where the respondent had availed cenvat credit on service tax paid for Custom House Agent (CHA) Services used in exporting goods. The Revenue department contended that the service did not qualify as an input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. Issue 2: The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing them to avail cenvat credit on the service tax paid by the CHA for services rendered. The Revenue argued that the eligibility for availing credit is limited to goods removed from the place of removal, which, according to them, is the factory premises, not the port where CHA services are typically used for exporting goods. Issue 3: The respondent presented a previous order in their favor on a similar issue for an earlier period, highlighting consistency in the interpretation of the law. The judge noted that the issue in the current case was the same as in the previous order, where the bench had ruled in favor of the respondent. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed meritless and rejected. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the eligibility of the respondent to avail cenvat credit on the service tax paid by the CHA for export services, based on the interpretation of relevant rules and past precedents. The decision emphasized consistency in legal interpretation and application, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
|