2016 (6) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit in respect of services namely Customs House Agents, Port Authorities, and Storage of Warehousing at Port - denial of claim on the ground that they have received the services at Port, which is beyond the place of removal - Held that - This Tribunal consistently taken a view in various decisions that in case of export, the place of removal stand extended to the port of export therefore the services received and used in respect of export is not beyond the place of removal. The Board Circular No. 996/6/2015-CX dt. 28.2.2015 also clarified that in case of export the place of removal is the port of export, therefore all the services received and used in relation to export of goods are admissible input services. As regard refund since the amount of refund is towards the deposit made during the proceedings of the Cenvat Credit case and since the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit the amount deposited in connection with the said proceeding shall stand refundable to the appellant. Thus appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of all the three services and consequently entitled for the refund.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for services used in export
- Rejection of refund claim due to pending Cenvat Credit proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for services used in export
The appellant claimed Cenvat Credit for services like Customs House Agents, Port Authorities, and Storage of Warehousing at Port. The adjudicating authority denied the credit stating that the services were received at the port, beyond the place of removal. The appellant argued that in cases of export, the place of removal extends to the port, not just the factory, making them eligible for the credit. They cited precedents and a Board Circular to support their claim. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that in export scenarios, the place of removal indeed includes the port of export. Therefore, services used in relation to export of goods are considered admissible input services for Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decision and allowed the Cenvat Credit for all three services in question.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim due to pending Cenvat Credit proceedings
The appellant had filed a refund claim during the Cenvat Credit proceedings, which was rejected because the credit demand had been confirmed. The appellant argued that since they were entitled to the Cenvat Credit and had paid the amount during the proceedings, they should also receive a refund with interest. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's stance, stating that the amount deposited during the Cenvat Credit proceedings should be refundable to the appellant since they were indeed entitled to the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed the appeals, and granted any consequential relief in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, emphasizing the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for services used in export and the entitlement to a refund due to the pending Cenvat Credit proceedings. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of the place of removal in export cases and upheld the appellant's rights to the credit and refund as per the law and relevant circulars.