Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)

1. The dispute in this appeal is about the admissibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on CHA services and courier services to the appellant.

2. In respect of CHA services, the learned Consultant relied upon the Honble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. as reported in : 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) : 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) to submit that all activities in connection with the business are required to be considered as covered by the definition of input services and therefore the Service Tax credit would be available. Further, he relied upon the Tribunals decision in the case of M/s. Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. as reported in : 2008 (12) S.T.R. 593 (Tri-Ahmd.) : 2008 (232) E.L.T. 804 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein the benefit of Service Tax paid on CHA services was held admissible. Learned JDR, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. as reported in : 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tri-Ahmd), in the case of M/s. Nirma Ltd. as reported in : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 64 (Tri-Ahmd) and in the case of M/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd. as reported in : 2007 (7) S.T.R. 451 (Tri-Ahmd). In all these cases, he submits that the Tribunal took a view that the credit of Service Tax in respect of CHA services would not be admissible.

3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. The decision of Tribunal in case of M/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd., was considered while rendering the decision in case of M/s. Adani Pharmachem Ltd. It was distinguished on the ground that the decision was rendered before issue of circular by CBE&C on 23-8-2007. Further, it was also observed that in M/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd. case, the Tribunal had taken a decision on the basis of submissions by Revenue that the services rendered by CHA was after clearance of the goods from the factory gate. Similarly, I also noticed that in case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., the Tribunal took note of the submission of the facts in Para 3 wherein it was stated by the appellant that there was no restriction that the services should be used before removal of the goods. Therefore, in M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. case also, there was no clear submission that CHA service was rendered before removal. In the present case, the goods were exported on FOB basis and therefore the place of removal has to be taken as port only. Once place of removal is taken as port, the service render by CHA have to be considered as having been rendered before the place of removal. Therefore, the earlier decisions cited by the learned JDR are not of any help. The other decisions cited were also rendered on the basis of other two decisions and therefore same are also not applicable. In view of the decisions taken in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. and M/s. Adani Pharmachem Ltd., the appellants are eligible for CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on CHA services. As regards courier services, the learned Consultant stated that the same was used for sending documents and definitely it is a activity relating to business. Further, there is no clear finding that the courier service was utilized only after removal of the goods.

4. In view of the above, the decision of Honble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. would be squarely applicable to the facts in this case also.

5. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order has no merits and has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Dictated & pronounced in Court)