M/S RAJDHANI CRAFTS Vs. CCE, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit registered for manufacture and export of wooden furniture. They had taken Cenvat credit taken for service tax paid on various services like transportation of goods from the factory to the port, services of the custom house agents and terminal handling charges and similar other charges incurred within the port area. Since they were not able to utilise the Cenvat credit taken for payment of excise duty, they claimed refund of such credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. At that stage Revenue took the objection that the services could not be considered as input services and refund was rejected on the ground that they were not eligible for the credit.

(2.) THE counsel for the appellant submits that the issue whether transportation from factory to the port is an input service is already decided in the case of CST Vs. ABB Limited - 2011 (23) STR 97. She also submits that the issue whether Cenvat credit can be availed on the services of custom house agent, has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Rolex Rings P. Ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 569 (Tri. -Ahmd.). Therefore, on these two services there cannot be any doubt that these are input services. In respect of other services, she submits that they are essentially of the same nature as in the case of the services of custom house agent and such services are required for exporting the goods. Since services utilised for business is considered as input services, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat credit.

(3.) THE A.R. for Revenue submits that though there are decisions in the case of services of outward transportation and custom house agent, there are no clear decisions in the case of other services and those cannot be considered as input services.