TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steels Ltd between July 2005 and July 2007, the interest thereon, and penalty of like amount under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority had held that the credit of tax paid on services related to handling of goods outside the factory, but up to and until export of goods, could not be availed by respondent owing to the restricted scope of the definition of 'input service' in rule 2(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned order has relied upon a number of decisions, all of it relating to export of goods, and the mandate to exclude domestic taxes from the pricing, to justify the setting aside of the demand confirmed by the original authority. 2. Heard Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a refund mechanism for certain specified services used by exporters does not, of itself, exclude the disputed services from coverage as input services. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are specifically designed for offsetting the cascading effects of tax visited upon manufacturers and service providers. Any mode of exclusion of tax that has been inserted in these Rules is restricted to those covered by the Rules. Other exporters would, necessarily, have recourse to a different mechanism to avoid the burden of tax. Quite conceivably, these are intended as mutually exclusive solution. 5. It is the contention of Revenue that services in question did not meet with the test of the definition of 'input services' as they pertain to activities beyon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not restricted to a factory or place of production but is extendable to any premises where goods are permitted to be deposited without payment of duty or from which place excisable goods are sold after clearance from the factory. One contention raised by the respondent is that they continue to be the owner of the goods till the physical export out of the country and, therefore, the factory cannot be said to be the place of removal. Considering that the goods are permitted to be deposited without payment of duty at the port of export, it would appear that the 'place of removal' in relation to exported goods is not the factory but beyond. Any service used till the place of removal would qualify as an 'input service.' There can be no cavil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... port would be admissible. The manufactured goods since cannot be sold without the assistance of clearing agents, such input service on commission also has been considered necessary and, therefore, any Cenvat credit availed of by the petitioner, according to the Tribunal, relating to the clearance of finished goods up to the place of removal, which is the port in the present case, would fall under the criteria and such amount shall be admissible. No restrictive meaning could be given to the definition of "input service" in wake of use of words "means and includes" as interpreted time and again by the Apex Court and this Court in the case of Parth Poly Weaves Pvt Ltd (supra), as also by the Bombay High Court in the case of Coca-Cola India....