2013 (11) TMI 332 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on GTA services Transportation of Goods - Input service of C&F agent - Whether the respondent would be eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services availed for transportation of the goods from the factory to the port from where the goods were placed on board the vessel for export to their overseas buyer Held that - Commissioner (Appeals). CCE, Rajkot Vs, Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 307 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - As per Board s circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007 had held the services obtained at the port as cenvatable services - service tax paid on C & F services is admissible as credit in the case of 100% EOU in view of the fact that place of removal in the case of C & F exports or FOB exports would be the load port Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over allowing credit of Service Tax paid on various services
- Interpretation of Cenvat credit eligibility for services obtained at the port
- Applicability of precedent decisions in determining Cenvat credit eligibility for transportation services

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a dispute regarding the allowance of credit of Service Tax paid on various services, including CHA services, Transportation of Goods by Rail Services, Business Support Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Transportation of Goods by Road, Courier Services, and Air Travel Agent Services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the credit, leading the revenue to file an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on precedent decisions and circulars to support the allowance of Cenvat credit for services obtained at the port.

The Tribunal specifically mentioned a case where the services obtained at the port were considered as cenvatable services, citing a Board's circular. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to another case where the issue of Cenvat credit eligibility for services availed for transportation of goods from the factory to the port was decided in favor of the respondent based on various judgments, including those of Division Benches. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it accordingly.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the Karnataka High Court upheld a decision challenged by the revenue, indicating the significance of precedent decisions in determining the eligibility of Cenvat credit for transportation services. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering past rulings and interpretations in resolving disputes related to Cenvat credit eligibility, ultimately leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal due to the issue being previously decided in favor of the respondent.