TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows refund on port services for export, denies CHA credit due to lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. Versus. CCE. Chandigarh-II </h3> M/s. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. Versus. CCE. Chandigarh-II - TMI Issues:1. Denial of cenvat credit on terminal handling charges, port services, and CHA services.2. Admissibility of cenvat credit on port services and handling service charges for export.3. Discrepancy in CHA service bills leading to denial of cenvat credit.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal after being unsuccessful before the first appellate authority, challenging the denial of cenvat credit on terminal handling charges, port services, and CHA services. The appellant argued that port services and terminal handling charges, being interconnected for export purposes, should be eligible for cenvat credit to offset duty/tax liability. However, the Revenue contended that without proper evidence, the appellant should not receive the cenvat credit, which would not result in a refund to the appellant.2. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal determined that port services and handling service charges, being incurred in the course of export, are indeed eligible for cenvat credit benefits under the law. This decision was based on a previous Larger Bench decision in the case of Western Agencies. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding these two services, allowing for the admissibility of a refund. However, concerning the CHA service, the Tribunal noted that due to a lack of clear evidence establishing the relationship between the service provider and recipient, the Revenue was justified in denying the refund. As a result, the appeal on this ground was dismissed, and the overall appeal was partly allowed.3. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the eligibility of cenvat credit on port services and handling service charges for export-related activities, leading to the admissibility of a refund for the appellant in this regard. However, the denial of cenvat credit on CHA services due to insufficient evidence supporting the service provider-recipient relationship was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of that aspect of the appeal.
TaxTMI 