9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 343 - AT - Central ExciseService tax credit - CHA services on export of goods and courier - Commissioner (A) held that such a credit is not admissible as the services are availed after the place of removal - Held that - in case of FoB contracts the place of removal is the port from where exports have been made - Following decision of CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd., 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Admissibility of service tax credit for CHA services on export of goods and courier services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order in Appeal No. 23/2011(Ahd-I) CE/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd., dated 16/03/2011. The main issue was whether the service tax credit for CHA services on export of goods and courier services is admissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (A) had held that such credit is not admissible as the services were availed after the place of removal. 2. The Respondent did not appear but submitted written submissions and relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble CESTAT, WZB, Ahmedabad in their own case dated 04/04/2011 in Appeal No.E/26/2010 on the same issue. The learned A.R. reiterated the Commissioner (A)'s stand taken in the Order in Appeal dated 16/03/2011. 3. Upon reviewing the case records and submissions, it was found that the crucial point to be decided was the admissibility of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on CHA services to the appellant. The appellant argued that in their previous case dated 4/4/2011 in Appeal No. E/26/2010, both issues were decided in their favor. It was noted that in FoB contracts, the place of removal is considered the port from where exports are made, as established by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement. 4. Given that the issue had been resolved in favor of the appellant based on the precedent set by the mentioned judgment, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. The decision was made in line with the ratio of the said judgment, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in Court accordingly.
|
