TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us decisions which have consistently held that the assessee is entitled to avail credit of service tax paid on input services when they are producing exempted excisable goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty. Further we find that the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. ANZ International cited supra it has been held that the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable when the goods are exported under bond. The High Court judgment has been maintained by the Hon ble Supreme Court and followed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in the Final Order No. 22062/2017 dated 18.09.2017 in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Further we find that the ratio of the CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20/05/2009 allowed the refund claim to the extent of Rs.37,30,842/- and rejected Rs.24,46,956/- on the ground that the respondent was not eligible for the benefit of cenvat credit on port services because the said services were in relation to loading, handling of Iron Ore etc. into the ship and there was no direct nexus between the services received at the port and the production of Iron Ore. The respondent filed an appeal against this rejection of the refund and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order No.497/2009 dated 04/12/2009 held that in view of the various decisions and in view of the fact that earlier orders had been allowed in favour of the respondent, they were eligible to avail cenvat credit on service tax paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) referring to the judgments of this Tribunal in the cases of CCE Rajkot vs. Rolex Rings P. Ltd 2008 (230) ELT 569 (Tri. Ahmd.) and CCE Rajkot vs. Adani Pharmachem P. Ltd 2008 (232) 804 (Tri. Ahmd.) held that port service is an input service, accordingly, eligible for refund of the credit availed on the said service. We do not find any discrepancy in the said order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 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 (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
