2024 (3) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services utilized by them at the port of export like Port Services, CHA Services, CHA Services and Clearing Forwarding Services - case of Revenue is that under N/N. 17/2009, the Appellant was eligible to get the exemption from payment of Service Tax on such services - HELD THAT - There is no compulsion on the part of the appellant to avail the exemption as given under Notification No.17/2009. In the case of M/S. SHYAM METALICS ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, BHUBANESWAR COMMISSIONERATE 2023 (2) TMI 1030 - CESTAT KOLKATA , this Bench has relied on the final order in the case of M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA-III 2019 (2) TMI 1023 - CESTAT KOLKATA and has held that the services rendered was within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There are no merit in the Appeal filed by the Revenue - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit on input services utilized at the port of export, the applicability of Notification No.17/2009 for exemption from Service Tax, and the interpretation of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the availability of Cenvat credit "upto the place of removal."

Eligibility of Cenvat Credit:
The Department contended that the appellant, an exporter of goods, should have availed the exemption under Notification No.17/2009 for services utilized at the port of export instead of claiming Cenvat credit. The Department argued that the Cenvat credit was taken after an amendment to Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, limiting its availability only "upto the place of removal." Therefore, the Department asserted that the appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit based on the location where the services were utilized.

Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
The Respondent's counsel argued that the appellant had the option to either avail the exemption under Notification No.17/2009 or pay Service Tax to the vendor and claim Cenvat credit, citing relevant case laws. The counsel referenced precedents such as Plus Paper Foodpac Ltd. and Save Industry cases to support the appellant's right to choose between exemption and Cenvat credit. Additionally, the counsel relied on the case of M/s.Shyam Mealics & Energy Ltd. to support the appellant's claim that the services utilized at the port were within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Judicial Findings and Dismissal of Appeal:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence and case laws presented, the Tribunal referred to the case of Save Industry, emphasizing that the appellant was not compelled to avail the exemption under Notification No.17/2009. Furthermore, the Tribunal cited the case of Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd. to conclude that the services utilized at the port fell within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, making the appellant eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that there was no merit in the Revenue's contentions, and upheld the appellant's right to claim Cenvat credit for the services utilized at the port of export.