2017 (8) TMI 1098

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vat credit on CHA service was availed by the appellant. The department has denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that no evidence was produced that the CHA service was used for export of goods and place of removal is not the factory, but it is port of exports therefore place of removal is factory gate consequently Cenvat credit was denied. 2. Shri. T.C. Nair, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i. S.R. Nair, Ld. Examiner(A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant did not submit any proof which shows that place of removal is a port of export therefore lower authority have rightly denied Cenvat credit for the reason place of removal is factory gate. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Excel Crop Care Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Ahm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re is no dispute that CHA service received by the appellant is for export of goods from the port of export, hence the same is input service. Judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel support their case. Since there is no dispute that place of removal is port of export, judgments relied upon by the Ld. A.R. will not be any help to the Revenue. As per my above discussions, impugned order is set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X