M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 13/2007(BVR)CE/DK/Comr(A-IV)/Ahd., dated 28-2-2007.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant is exporting part of the goods manufactured by them and for the said purpose they are engaging services of CHA/Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The Original Authority held that the services cannot be considered as input services, as they have been rendered at the port in connection with the export, and decided that the credit of service tax is not available and accordingly denied the credit amounting to Rs. 68,829/. This order of the Original Authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The authorized representative of the appellant submits that in respect of exports the place of removal should be treated as port from which the goods are shipped and the factory gate. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kuntal Granites Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (81) RLT 707.

4. Ld. SDR submits that this very issue relating to availability of Cenvat credit on CHA services availed for export has been decided in the cases of Excel Crop Care Ltd. , CCE, Indore v. N.H.K. Spring Ltd. 2007 (7) S.T.R. 63 and Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249.

At this juncture, the ld Authorised Representative submits that as there are different decisions on the same issue, it may be a fit case for reference to the Larger Bench.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The decision in the case of Kuntal Granites Ltd. cited supra is in the context of granting of remission on excisable goods which have been destroyed in a fire and the same has been rendered taking into consideration provisions of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act also. The present case involves the services on which the tax paid are claimed as credit by treating them as input services. This case is squarely and directly covered by the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra by the ld. SDR. The observation of the Tribunal in the case of Excell Crop Care ltd. (cited supra) is reproduced below:

The CHA services availed in respect of export does not have any nexus with the manufacture and clearance of the product from the factory. The business activities which are sought to be included in the extending arm of the definition, in my opinion, cannot include the services rendered at the port area.

6. In the light of the above, the appeal is rejected.

(Dictated and Pronounced in Court)