2016 (6) TMI 914 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input service viz. Custom House Agent Services availed by the respondent in relation to export of goods. - Held that - these services were utilised for purpose of export of final products and exporters could not do business without them and hence service tax paid on these services availed till goods reached port was admissible and that the input service cannot be given restrictive meaning in view of means and includes used in definition in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit on input service of "Custom House Agent Services" for export of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the denial of cenvat credit on input services related to the export of goods, specifically "Custom House Agent Services." The department alleged that the respondent had availed ineligible cenvat credit and issued a show cause notice proposing a demand along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the allegations, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the Revenue filing the present appeal.

The Revenue argued that the Custom House Agent service was not an eligible "input service" as it was related to post-manufacturing activities and not used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods. They sought the restoration of the original order by setting aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

On the other hand, the respondent contended that the issue had been settled in their favor based on judicial pronouncements and relied on various case laws and a Board's Circular to support their argument. They emphasized that the Custom House Agent services were utilized for exporting goods before loading them onto the ship, making it an eligible input service for cenvat credit.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases. The Tribunal cited a specific case where it was held that the place of removal in the case of export goods is the port of shipment, and services utilized before loading the goods onto the ship are admissible for cenvat credit. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order based on the precedent set by previous judgments and the interpretation of relevant rules and definitions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent, based on the established legal principles and interpretations of relevant provisions and case laws.

Judgment:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit on Custom House Agent Services for the export of goods.