2018 (6) TMI 628 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - services availed by the assessee at the port area - CHA services - Fumigation Services - Environ Care Services - denial on the ground that the services stand obtained beyond the place of removal, which is the factory gate and as such, have no nexus with the manufacture and clearance of the goods, which were ultimately exported - Held that - It is seen that the Revenue in the memo of appeal have challenged the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) on merits but there is no ground challenging his order on non-applicability of extended period. As such, though on merits also this order cannot be faulted upon but in the absence of any specific challenge to the findings on limitation, we are of the view that the impugned order would sustain on the said ground itself - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on CHA services, Fumigation Services, and Environ Care Services at the port area.
- Denial of credit by the original adjudicating authority.
- Interpretation of the place of removal in the case of exports.
- Applicability of the extended period for demanding tax.
- Justification for challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order on merits.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the availment of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on CHA services, Fumigation Services, and Environ Care Services availed by the assessee at the port area from September 2004 to December 2008. The original adjudicating authority had denied the credit, stating that the services were obtained beyond the place of removal, which was the factory gate, and thus lacked a nexus with the manufacture and clearance of goods for export.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to various Tribunal decisions and determined that in the case of exports, the place of removal extended up to the port area. Considering the services as essential for the import of raw materials and export of finished products, the Commissioner held them to be eligible for Cenvat credit. The Commissioner also ruled that the demand for tax was barred by limitation, as the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions without any evidence of malafide on the part of the assessee.

Although the Revenue challenged the Commissioner's findings on merits in their appeal, they did not contest the order's non-applicability of the extended period. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order was sound on both merits and limitation grounds. Without a specific challenge to the limitation aspect, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were rejected, and cross objections were disposed of as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the extension of the place of removal for export-related services and the lack of grounds to challenge the decision based on limitation issues. The judgment provided clarity on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for services availed at the port area during the export process, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and limitations on tax demands.