2014 (10) TMI 564 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Credit availed on various services - Held that - In respect of exports, the place of removal is port and therefore the services cannot be said to have been obtained after the removal of the goods. Moreover it is also not correct to say that credit of duty paid on all services received after removal of the goods are not eligible. The definition itself clearly provides that certain services are included in the definition of input services and the inclusive definition has been provided to take care of such situation. Having regard to the nature of services received, amount involved and the definition of input services, I consider that appellant is eligible for the credit of duty paid by them - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Applicability of Cenvat credit on various services received by the appellant for manufacturing medicaments.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, delivered by Member (T), Shri B.S.V. Murthy, addressed the common issue in two appeals challenging the same order-in-appeal. The appeals were consolidated for a common order. Initially listed for stay applications, it was observed during the hearing that the appeals themselves could be disposed of. Consequently, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appeals were taken up for final decision.

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing medicaments, had availed Cenvat credit on various services including Export Agent Commission, Hazardous waste material incineration charges, Pest control service, Xerox machine service, Membership fees, Professional charges, and Employees transport charges. The issue at hand was whether the appellant was eligible for Cenvat credit on these services. The Tribunal noted that for exports, the place of removal is the port, and services obtained after the removal of goods may not be considered eligible. However, the definition of 'input services' includes certain services, and an inclusive definition is provided to address such situations. Considering the nature of services, the amounts involved, and the definition of input services, the Tribunal held that the appellant was indeed eligible for the credit of duty paid on the services. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellant.

The operative part of the order was pronounced in court on 24-1-2014, providing clarity on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for the appellant in question.