2017 (4) TMI 1117 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - input service credit - various input services - denial mainly on account of nexus - denial also on the ground that the services were not used in or in relation to manufacture and clearances up to the place of removal - Held that - the position of law is fairly settled in respect of input service and the appellant is fairly succeeded to establish that they are used for manufacture and clearance of their final products - CBEC, vide its Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 itself has clarified that the place of removal in such cases would be Port/ICD/CFS. As for the service of Palletisation, the show cause notice does not elaborate anything about palletisation - Considering that this service is related to clearances of the goods meant for export, the benefit of credit on the same is available to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of input service credit on various services for manufacturing activities and clearances.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, being a manufacturer of motor parts and a 100% EOU, appealed against the Order-in-Appeal denying input service credit on services like Clearing Agent, Job Work charges, AMC Charges, Internet Services, Consultancy, Courier Services, and GTA Services.
2. The denial was based on the argument that these services were not connected to the manufacturing process or clearances up to the place of removal. The appellant's advocate argued that relevant judgments and circulars supported their claim, including the clarification by the Board regarding the place of removal for manufacturer exporters.
3. The appellant relied on various case laws to support their claim for input services availed, such as CHA Services and GTA Services for transportation, and miscellaneous business-related services like AMC for UPS and ACs, Internet Services, Consultancy for DBK claims, Courier Services, and Job Work services.
4. The Revenue contended that some services were provided after the removal of goods and lacked connection with manufacturing activities, reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The Tribunal found that the appellant, being a manufacturer and exporter, had established the use of input services for manufacturing and clearance of final products. Referring to settled law and relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that the services were indeed connected with the manufacture of final products, and the benefit of input service credit was permissible.
6. Regarding the service of Palletisation, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice lacked details on this service. However, considering that the activity was related to clearance of goods for export, the Tribunal held that the credit for Palletisation service was available to the appellant.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as lacking merit and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, granting them the benefit of input service credit on the disputed services.