Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Gee Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. E/S/22 & 23/2010 In
Appeal No. E/19 & 20/2010.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB//132 & 133/M-III/2009 dated 29/10/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-II
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Gee Ltd.
:
Appellants VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Respondents Appearance Shri R. Sundaram, Advocate, for Appellants Shri B.P. Pareira, JDR Authorized Representative CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 19/07/2010 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal against the denial of input service credit availed by the appellant of Custom House Agent Services. The denial of input credit was only on the ground that the CHA service is not have any nexus to the manufactured of the goods. The appellants are not contesting the denial of Cenvat Credit on telephone service.
2. The learned Advocate relied on series of decisions cited below:-
[i] Commissioner of C.Ex., Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings P. Ltd. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] [ii] Modern Petrofils Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Vadodara [2010 (18) S.T. R. 625 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] [iii] Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat Vs. Colour Synth Industries P. Ltd. [2009 (14) S.T.R. 309 (Tri.Ahmd.)] [iv] JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2009 (14) S.T.R.310 (Tri.-Chennai)] [v] Commissioner of C.Ex. Chennai Vs. Fourrts (I) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (19) S.T.R. 86 (Tri.-Chennai)] [vi] Commissioner of C.Ex. Ahmedabad Vs. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 (244) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.Ahmd.)] [viii] Commissioner of C.Ex. Rajkot Vs. Adani Pharmachem P. Ltd. [2008 (12) S.T.R. 593 (Tri. Ahmd.)] [ix] Hyundai Motors (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Chennai [2008 (10) S.T.R. 263 (Tri.-Chennai)] Wherein it has been held that the exporters continue to remain owner of the goods in question till same are exported and the place of removal or goods is in export is port area, any service availed by the exporer till port area are input services inasmuch as same are related to business activities.
3. Heard.
4. I have gone through the case law cited by the learned Advocate and as per the case laws, the place of removal is in case of export is port area. The services availed by the exporter of CHA are covered by the above cited decisions. Accordingly, after waiver of pre-condition of pre-deposit of the impugned demand, I proceed to decide the appeal itself. As these appeals are covered by the case law cited by the learned Advocate, I hold that the input service credit is available to the applicants.
5. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3