9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issued Show Cause Notice on the ground that under Notification No.17/2009, the Appellant was eligible to get the exemption from payment of Service Tax on such services. Further, it was also viewed that the services have been rendered subsequent to the "place of removal". Therefore, as per Department, after amendment to Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant would not be eligible for the Cenvat Credit. After due process, the adjudicating authority dropped the demands. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld.AR for the Department submits that since exemption was granted under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for the services, the Appellant was bound to take exemption route. However, they hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mealics & Energy Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar [2023 (2) TMI 1030 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. Therefore, he submits that the appellant has correctly claimed the Cenvat credit and prays that the present appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the documentary evidence placed before us and the cited case law. 5. The Tribunal in the case of Save Industry (cited supra) has held as under:- "5. As far as Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009 is concerned, it exempts the taxable services received by an exporter of goods and used by him for export of goods. This exemption is subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions stipulated is that no Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has relied on the final order in the case of M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III [2020- TIOL-1172-CESTATKOL] and has held that the services rendered was within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as per the relevant extracts given below:- "6. Therefore, even going by the above Circular, the ICD/Port of shipment is nothing but the extended location of the manufacturing unit only. ICD/Port will also fall within the definition of 'Place of Removal' as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Inductotherm case cited supra. Therefore, all expenses incurred from the factory gate upto ICD/Port of Shipment would also be within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
