Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Indo-British Garments (P) Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 1 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 668/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 237/Appl/DLH-IV/2010 dated-29/11/2010 passed by CCE, Delhi-IV]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Indo-British Garments (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri N.L. Janjir, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.K. Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 13.06.2013 Date of Decision: 01.07.2013 FINAL ORDER NO. 56806/2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the service tax paid on the CHA Services for providing various services at the load port are to be treated as input services for the purpose of Cenvat credit or not.
2. There is no dispute that the appellant have availed the said CHA Services, who has raised invoices and has paid service tax against various services provided by him. The appellant have contended that the exported goods are on FOB basis and it is the appellant who remained the owner of the goods till the port area. The transit charges are also paid by the appellant. The lower authorities have not accepted the above stand of the appellant by observing that inasmuch as the expenses stand incurred at the port area, after the removal of the goods to port, the same cannot be considered to be eligible cenvatable input services. Accordingly demands stand confirmed for the period 2004-2005 to November, 2008 by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 23.3.09.
3. After hearing both the sides, I find that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by various decision of the Tribunal. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2008 (12) S.T.R. 593 (Tri.- Ahmd.)], it was held that where goods are sold on FOB basis and Service tax paid for CHA Services, all the services availed till the port area would be considered as input services for the purposes of eligible credit. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri-Ahmd.)]. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported as [2011 (22) S.T.R. 210 (Tri.-Del)], after taking note of various precedent decisions, held that Custom House Agent services availed in respect of goods exported on FOB basis are to be treated as input services for the purpose of Cenvat credit.
4. Inasmuch as the issue stand decided, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court on 01.07.2013) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3