9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 823 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Custom House Agent services - Revenue contends that wrong availment of CENVAT Credit was there since this service does not fall under input service - Held that - in case of exports of goods on F.O.B. basis load port has to be considered as place of removal and therefore credit is admissible. Since Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal and no contrary decision of a higher forum has been produced before me for differing with the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Commissioner - Following decisions of CCE Vs. Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (7) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD CCE Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (2) TMI 770 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and CCE Vs. Vhamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 450 - CESTAT BANGALORE - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Cenvat credit availed on Custom House Agent services for export of goods - Admissibility of credit based on place of removal. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1,68,007/- on Custom House Agent services used in the export of goods by the respondent. The department contended that the service did not fall under the definition of input service as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice dated 31.03.09. The impugned order dated 22.09.10 confirmed a demand for the amount along with interest and imposed an equal penalty. Upon appeal, the Commissioner took the view that the credit had been correctly taken and allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal. The Revenue argued that the credit was inadmissible as it was availed beyond the place of removal, which, in this case, was the factory gate, not the point of export. However, the Commissioner relied on Tribunal decisions such as CCE Vs. Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., CCE Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd., and CCE Vs. Vhamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., which held that in the case of exports on F.O.B. basis, the load port should be considered as the place of removal, making the credit admissible. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal as the Commissioner had correctly relied on previous Tribunal decisions, and no contradictory decision from a higher forum was presented. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the admissibility of the cenvat credit on Custom House Agent services for the export of goods.
|
