CCE VAPI Vs. M/S. MICRO INKS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order in appeal No. SKSS/282/VAPI/2010, dt. 21.12.10. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that during the course of EA -2000 Audit, it was noticed that the respondent, during the period March 2007 to February 2008, had availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,28,649/ - of service tax paid on Custom House Agent Services used in export of their goods. Revenue department entertained a view that as per Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the said service does not fall under the definition of input service and therefore the appellant had wrongly availed cenvat credit. Accordingly, SCN dated 31 -03 -2009 was issued which after due process of law was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 21.09.2010 wherein demand of Rs. 3,28,649/ - along with interest was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by such an order, respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who held in the favour of the assessee set aside the order in original holding that the respondent is eligible to avail cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the CHA on the services rendered.

(2.) ARGUING for the Revenue, ld. D.R. submits that once the goods are manufactured and cleared from the factory premises, the place of removal is a factory premises and not the port. It is his submission that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of N.H.K. Springs Ltd. - : 2007 (215) ELT 354 (Tri. - Del.) will be applicable i.e. eligibility of credit of outward transportation is only up to place of removal. It is his submission that the definition of input services fixes the eligibility to avail cenvat credit for the goods removed from the place of removal and the CHA services are generally availed by the assessees at the docks or ports for export of the goods and hence it is not the place of the removal.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in one case in hand and the issue as was in order dated 03.08.12, is the same. On perusal of the said order, I find that there is no difference in the issue and hence I find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of the merits, as in the final order dated 03.08.12 this bench has held in the favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal is rejected.