Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Dynamic Industries Limited on 22 July, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
Appeal No. : E/10985, 10986 / 2013
(Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 04//2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD, 03/2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD and both dated 23.01.2013 Passed by Commissioner Central Excise Ahmedabad-I)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad I : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
M/s Dynamic Industries Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Govind Jha, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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 CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 22.07.2015 ORDER No. A/11084-11085/2015 Dated 22.07.2015 Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
These appeals have been filed by revenue against OIA No. 04/2013 (Ahd-I) CE/AK/Commr (A)/Ahd dated 23.01.2013. As these appeals are filed on common issues there for these are being taken for disposal under this common order.
2. Shri. Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of revenue argued that issue involved in these appeals is admissibility of Cenvat Credit of CHA Services and Shipping Agents and Transport Services availed by the appellant from the factory gate to the port of export. It was his case that these services are availed from the place of removal and are accordingly not covered under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, read with Section 4(3) (C) of Central Excise Act 1944. It was strongly argued that orders passed by the first appellate authority are not correct and should be set aside by up holding order-in-original passed by adjudicating authority should be restored.
3. Shri. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondents argued that earlier on the same issue the case was decided in favour of the appellant by CESTAT under order No. A/272/WZB/AHD/2012 AND a/952/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 01.12.2011 against which revenue filed appeal in Gujarat High Court as Tax Appeal No. 912 of 2012, as mentioned in Para 31 of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue in appeal No. E/10985/2013. Learned advocate argued that Tax Appeal No. 912 of 2012 has been decided by Gujarat High Court on 25.07.2014 as per citation Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd. [2014(35) S.T.R. 674 (Guj.) He further relied upon CBEC circuler No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 under which it is clarified that in case of export of goods delivered to the foreign buyer the place of removal is the port of export.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeals is regarding admissibility of Cenvat credit on Customs House Agent Services and Shipping Agent and Transportation Services from the factory gate to the port of export. The issue is no more res-integra as jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of the same assessee vide order dated 25.07.2014, as reported as Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd. (supra), decided the admissibility the services involved in the present appeals in favour the same assessee. Accordingly the appeals filed the revenue are rejected.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) VM