9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1050 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service - place of removal - services received for the purposes of export of the finished goods - HELD THAT - The issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the respondent s own case COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUS. SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESHWAR-I M/S. NALCO LTD. 2024 (8) TMI 593 - CESTAT KOLKATA for the another unit, wherein this Tribunal has observed ' Since the fact of taking the Cenvat Credit on a monthly basis on account of such ISD invoices was very much reflected in the ER-1, the Department cannot take the stand that Respondent has suppressed any fact.' The respondent is entitled to the Cenvat Credit of the service in question as input service in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against dropped proceedings regarding Input Service Credit for export-related services received. Analysis: The appeal was made by the Revenue against the dropped proceedings by the Adjudicating Authority concerning the Input Service Credit availed by the respondent for export-related services. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing aluminum, received services for export purposes from its unit at Vizag, including port terminal handling charges, siding charges, and cargo handling charges from M/s Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The dispute arose when it was observed during an audit that these services did not have a nexus with the manufacturing activities and were utilized beyond the place of removal, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the respondent for the period November 2007 to March 2013. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings, prompting the Revenue to appeal. During the proceedings, it was noted that a similar issue had been resolved by the Tribunal in the respondent's favor for another unit. The Tribunal had previously held that services used for export purposes, including cargo handling, could be considered as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including one by the Gujarat High Court, which emphasized that services utilized for export up to the port of shipment could be considered input services. Further, the Tribunal cited other cases where similar issues had been decided in favor of the taxpayer, emphasizing that the place of removal for export goods is the port. The Tribunal also referenced a Circular by CBEC supporting the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for services utilized in the export process. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was well-settled based on previous decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period provisions for issuing the Show Cause Notice were not justified, as the issue was a matter of interpretation rather than suppression of facts. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the respondent was entitled to the Cenvat Credit for the service in question as an input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the settled legal principles and interpretations established in previous judgments and circulars.
|
