2013 (3) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Input service credit availed on CHA services, Port services, GTA services, Courier services and Business Auxiliary Services - Held that - As decided in Ultratech Cement (2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) any service availed by a manufacturer of excisable goods in the course of business is entitled for input service and in a series of cases, this Tribunal time and again has held that in the case of export of goods, the place of removal is the port from where the goods are exported. All the services availed by the respondents qualify the definition of Rule 2(l) of CCR 04 and squarely applicable to the facts of Amalgamations Repco Ltd. (2011 (10) TMI 508 - CESTAT, CHENNAI). In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against input service credit allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) on CHA, Port, GTA, Courier, and Business Auxiliary Services for exporters. Interpretation of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding entitlement to input service credit post-manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved Revenue challenging the input service credit allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the respondents for services like CHA, Port, GTA, Courier, and Business Auxiliary Services during the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. Revenue contended that as the services were availed beyond the place of removal, the respondents were not entitled to input service credit as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued, and the adjudicating authority denied the credit, leading to confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty, which was later overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting Revenue's appeal.

The learned SDR argued that post-manufacturing services beyond the place of removal do not qualify for input service credit, citing various Tribunal decisions in support. On the contrary, the respondents' counsel relied on Tribunal decisions establishing the port as the place of removal in export cases, asserting the entitlement to credit for the mentioned services. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the precedential significance of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in Ultratech Cement case, emphasizing a manufacturer's entitlement to input services in the course of business.

The Tribunal found the services availed by the respondents aligned with Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, especially in the context of export scenarios where the port serves as the place of removal. Citing the Amalgamations Repco Ltd. case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing Revenue's appeal and disposing of cross objections accordingly. The judgment highlighted the consistent interpretation of input service entitlement for manufacturers of excisable goods and the pivotal role of the port in export-related scenarios, as established in relevant legal precedents.