M/S Lona Industries Ltd vs Cce, Raigad

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/482/RGD/2012 dated 10.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

M/s Lona Industries Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Raigad Respondent

Appearance:

Shri V. Mahadevan, Advocate for Appellant

Shri S. Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 17.06.2015

Date of Decision: 17.06.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. US/482/RGD/2012 dated 10.08.2012.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding confirmation of demand of Rs.4,99,853/- as ineligible Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on C.H.A. Services on the goods cleared from the factory for export. Both the lower authorities have confirmed the demands with interest and equal amount of penalty, holding that the Cenvat Credit of service tax is ineligible, as the services are rendered after clearance of goods from the factory.

4. There is no dispute as to the facts that Service Tax liability was discharged by the Custom House Agent who were engaged for the goods cleared for export. The show cause notice at paragraph No. 5 specifically alleges as under:

5. The credit of Service Tax paid on Custom House Agent cannot be availed and utilized by the assessee, as they are related to Post removal activities and are neither directly nor indirectly related to course of manufacture of finished goods and therefore do not conforms to the definitions of input service as envisaged in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2044.

It can be seen that show cause notice seeks to deny Cenvat Credit only on the ground that C.H.A. Services for post removal Activities. C.H.A. Services are engaged by the appellant assessee is for removal of goods for export is an undisputed fact.

5. The issue of eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on C.H.A. Services is settled in the favour of the appellant assessee by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Adani Pharma. P. Ltd.  2008 (232) ELT 804 and Modern Petrofils  2010 (18) STR 625.

6. In view of the forgoing and authoritative judicial pronouncements, I find that the impugned order is incorrect and liable to be set aside and I do so.

7. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Dictated in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)

1