2012 (9) TMI 735 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of cenvat credit of service tax - services are utilised by the appellant post removal of the goods for export Held that - Place of removal shall be Port and any service utilised by the assessee at that moment can be considered as input service and cenvat credit can be availed of such service tax by the service providers - appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
Denial of cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services utilized post removal of goods for export.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the denial of cenvat credit of service tax paid on various input services utilized after the clearance of goods for export. The appellant exported final products and utilized services like bank charges, CHA, courier charges, transporter, forwarder, shipping line, fumigation charges, etc., for the purpose of exportation of goods. The Revenue contended that since the services were used post-clearance of goods from the factory premises, cenvat credit should be denied. However, it is established through various precedents, including Kuntal Granites Ltd. v. CCE, Rolex Rings (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, and Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, that for export purposes, the place of removal is the port. Therefore, any service utilized by the assessee at that moment qualifies as an input service, and cenvat credit can be availed of such service tax by the service providers.

The Tribunal's decision aligns with the settled legal position that services utilized at the port for export purposes are eligible for cenvat credit. The impugned order, which denied the cenvat credit based on the timing of service utilization post-clearance of goods, is set aside. The appellant's appeal is allowed, emphasizing the importance of considering the place of removal for export-related services in determining cenvat credit eligibility.