2015 (12) TMI 676 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Various service - Held that - Services were utilized for export of the goods - After considering the decisions of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2014 (8) TMI 713 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , Tribunal 2014 (11) TMI 579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and Both Circular, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit on input services for an Export Oriented Unit (EOU).
- Contradiction between the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
- Application of decisions by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Larger Bench of the Tribunal, and Board Circulars.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the denial of Cenvat Credit on input services for an EOU engaged in the manufacture of frozen foods. The Adjudicating Authority denied credit on services like Customs Clearing, Business Auxiliary, Repairs & Maintenance, and Outward Transportation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The main contention raised by the Revenue's Authorized Representative was the contradiction between the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's ruling in a specific case. The Representative highlighted this discrepancy and reiterated the grounds of appeal.

3. The judge referred to various decisions by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Larger Bench of the Tribunal, and Board Circulars to address the issue at hand. These included cases like Dynamic Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner and Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Additionally, Circular Final No. 267/13/2015 - CX.8 was also considered.

4. The judge noted that there was no dispute regarding the utilization of services for exporting goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the services were used for the export of goods, and the clearance of finished goods for export was not questioned. Considering the precedents and circulars, the judge found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the application of relevant precedents to reach a decision in the case.