TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. Penalty of Rs. 62,27,334.25 has also been imposed upon the appellant in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as under: (a) The appellant during the material period manufactured and exported C.R.Coils, Electrolytic Tin Plates, Tin-free Steel, Lacquered Sheets, Ferrous Waste & Scrap and Miscellaneous Scrap (hereinafter referred to as the "said goods") falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (b) In the course of such export under contracts entered into on FOB basis, the appellant availed services included those pertaining to airline handling, documentation, freight handling, terminal handling, clearing, licence verification, export and consultancy services on commission basis, commission paid to different parties for handling the goods in the port area, loading, unloading, storage and transportation of the said goods, container stuffing and destuffing, warehouse usage, wharfage, container handling, security by watchman, inspection of goods at the port of export, container fumigation, supervision of discharge, deli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval" within the meaning of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and thus qualified to be "input services" eligible to cenvat credit of the tax paid thereon under the Cenvat Credit Rules? (II) Whether the said services satisfied the requirement of Rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules of being directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of the said final products from/upto the place of removal during the said period and/or satisfied the requirement of the inclusive part of the definition of "input services" in Rule 2(l), being activities relating to the business of manufacture of the final products and clearance thereof by the appellant from/upto the place of removal, during the said period. 5. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant that: (a) It is now settled that in case of export of goods, the place of removal gets extended to the place where the export documents are presented to the Customs Office i.e. the port of shipment or the airport or the land customs station, as the case may be. Hence, the said services qualified as "input services" eligible to cenvat credit under the Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant had rendered export of the subject goods under the supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers, who put their respective signatures by sealing the export goods. The appellant also duly maintained all records of the export activities, including the expenses incurred. The various services rendered by the appellant were within the full knowledge of the Department. There was no concealment or misstatement of any fact on the part of the appellant. No material has been disclosed in the impugned order as required in terms of the settled principles in this regard to establish that the requirement as laid down in the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act has been satisfied. In absence of such material/evidence being disclosed either in the show cause notice or in the said order, it is settled law that burden is cast upon the Department in this regard. Such onus has not been satisfied and as such there can be no invocation of the extended period of limitation specified in the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. None of the purported reasons alleged in the show cause notice or held in the said order satisfy the requirement of law as settled by the Apex Court. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teamer agent services rendered at the export port on which cenvat credit was availed as "input service", this Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd., 2014-TIOL- 2678-HC-AHM-ST, it has been held as follows: "10. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods have been exported. In such cases the place of removal is the port where the export of goods is loaded on to the vessel. Inspite of the same, the Adjudicating Authority has denied such credit. We note that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has granted the credit of CENVAT Credit for Cargo Handling Services used for clearance of final product from the port for export. The Hon'ble High Court observed that: "22. The question that begs the decision is as to whether cargo handling services can be said to have been used in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final product upto the place of removal, which is port. Admittedly, there is no express inclusion of cargo handling service in the definition of 'input service'. However, in light of the decisions render....