2024 (3) TMI 128 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that the respondents were not eligible to avail the cenvat credit on the input services in view of the bar contained in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the respondent is eligible for the benefit of cenvat credit which is used for Port services which has resulted in refund? - HELD THAT - There is no whisper on this issue of eligibility of cenvat credit on port services in their grounds filed and placed before me. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails on this ground itself. The respondent has placed on record the judgment of this Tribunal in the respondent s own case COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, BELGAUM VERSUS BELLARY IRON ORE PVT LTD 2023 (9) TMI 1440 - CESTAT BANGALORE , wherein it is held as The services rendered at the port has been consistently held as an input service within the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, port being the place of removal in case export of goods. In result, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Hence, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of availing cenvat credit on input services under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Eligibility of availing cenvat credit on port services for loading and handling of goods.

Issue 1:
The respondent filed a refund claim which was initially rejected based on Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim citing statutory provisions and judicial decisions. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the respondent is entitled to cenvat credit even when the final product is exempted from Central Excise duty. Various judicial decisions were referenced to support this conclusion, emphasizing that cenvat credit can be availed on input services for producing exempted goods. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing precedents and maintaining that the Commissioner's decision was appropriate.

Issue 2:
Following the Tribunal's order on the first issue, the respondent filed a refund claim related to port services. The original authority partially allowed the claim but rejected a portion, stating that the respondent was not eligible for cenvat credit on port services due to a lack of direct nexus with the production of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, allowing the refund. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing against the eligibility of cenvat credit on port services. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal focused solely on the rejection of the refund based on Rule 6, which had already been decided in favor of the respondent. Citing previous Tribunal judgments, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that port services are considered input services eligible for cenvat credit. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and relief was granted to the respondent.