Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 504 - CESTAT, BANGALOREEntitlement to CENVAT credit on CHA service used in connection with export of certain goods - Held that:- In the present case, the goods were exported and when export documents are presented to the Customs office, then that is the place of removal as per section 5 of C.E. Act. The same finding has been rendered by this bench in the case to Koeleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore [2005 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. There is no reason to take a different view from the same. The Superintendent (AR) attempt to distinguish the above case by submitting that the above decision was rendered in respect of remission of duty and not in respect of CENVAT credit is inconsequential inasmuch as there is only one definition of 'place of removal' under the Central Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder whether for the purpose of valuation of excisable goods or for the purpose of determination of claim of CENVAT credit or for any other purpose whatsoever. On a harmonious construction of the provisions, in respect of the excisable goods cleared from factory for export and subsequently shipped from the port, the port of export could be held to be the 'place of removal'. In view of this it has to be held that the respondents were entitled to treat CHA service/GTA service as 'input services' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as these services were used for clearance of excisable goods from the 'place of removal'. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on 'Business Auxiliary Services' received from foreign and domestic commission agents - Held that:- There is no valid ground for the department's appeals as its plea that there was no nexus between the 'Business Auxiliary Services' and manufacture of the goods does not advance their case inasmuch as a nexus between 'Business Auxiliary Services' and clearance of the goods from the 'place of removal' has been established by the assessee. This nexus is enough for reckoning the service as 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is not the case of the department that the assessee was not entitled to claim CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by themselves under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, in the result, the second issue also must be held in favour of the assessee.
|