TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [ 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of taxable service whose aggregate value of taxable service exceeds certain limit to make an application for registration within the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons dis-entitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (for brevity the Tribunal ). 2.The appeal was admitted on 06.10.2017, on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the CENVAT credit availed and distributed by the respondent prior to getting registered as an input service Distributor under the Act; (2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the imposition of penalty under erstwhile Rule 15(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on the facts and circumstances of the case? and (3) Whether Tribunal is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on CHA services when the same is availed after the goods has been cleared from the place of removal? 3.So far as the first and second substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee. 4.The above decision has been accepted by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide Circular dated 16.02.2018. Therefore, the above questions have to be decided against the Revenue and accordingly, decided so. 5.So far as the third substantial question of law is concerned, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel strenuously argued that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the CENVAT credit on Customs House Agents (CHA) services. It is submitted that these services are not in relation to the manufacturing activities of the assessee and these services are with reference to the clearance of goods after they were moved out of the factory and credit has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein, it has been clarified as follows:- 6. In the case of clearance of goods for export by manufacturer exporter, shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and goods are handed over to the shipping line. After Let Export Order is issued, it is the responsibility of the shipping line to ship the goods to the foreign buyer with the exporter having no control over the goods. In such a situation, transfer of property can be saic to have taken place at the port where the shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and place of removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly. 7.The above circular dated 28.02.2015, has been reiterated in Circular No.1065/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has granted relief to the assessee. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law arises for consideration on this issue, viz., with regard to allowing CENVAT credit on CHA services and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, we leave the substantial question of law open. 9.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the Revenue, in favour of the assessee and substantial question of law no.3 is left open, as the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on the ground that there was no material evidence and therefore, we are of the view that this issue cannot be a substantial question of law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
