2017 (6) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f cenvat credit in respect of two input services viz. Banking and Other Financial Charges and Cargo Handling Services. Since in all the appeals, the issue is identical, therefore all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of the refund claims are given below: Sl. No. Amount of Claim (Rs.) Order-in-Original No. Period of claim 1 3,58,281/- 08/2011 11/2009 & 12/2009 2 3,15,178/- 09/2011 01/2010 3 73,833/- 10/2011 09/2009 4 1,23,492/- 27/2011 03/2010 5 3,53,156/- 80/2011 dt. 24.10.2011 04/2010 to 06/2010 6 4,70,135/- 81/2011 dt. 24.10.2011 07/2010   2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service as contained in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the impugned order is against the decisions rendered by higher judicial fora holding these two services as input services . He further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund on Banking and Other Financial Charges on the ground that no proper evidence has been produced that these services are used in or in relation to the manufacture and export of goods and similarly refund has been rejected on Cargo Handling Services in respect of export of goods, the services used by the manufacturer up to the place of removal only eligible for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submitted that the impugned order does not dispute the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the input service with regard to Cargo Handling Service, the impugned order has wrongly held that the services which are received up to the place of removal are eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submitted that in the case of export of goods, the place of removal shall be the port of loading the goods for export and not the factory gate. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Kuntal Granites Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.-Bang.) b) Nov Sara India (P) Ltd. 2012 (286) E.L.T. 461 (G.O.I) c) Heera Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2012 (280) E.L.T. 514 (Tri.-Bang.) d) Cauvery Stones Impex Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem 2010....