Mr. B.S.V. Murthy - (1.)THE facts of the case in brief are that during the course of EA -2000 Audit, it was noticed that the respondent, during the period October 2007 to January 2009, had availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs.4,84,518/ - on Custom House Agent services and terminal handling charges, in respect of their export consignments. The department entertained a view that as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the said services do not fall under the definition of input service and therefore the respondent had wrongly availed cenvat credit. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 01.02.10 was issued which after due process of law was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 07.10.10 wherein demand of Rs.4,84,518/ - along with interest was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner took a view that credit has been correctly taken and allowed the appeal. Revenue is in appeal.
(2.)THE ld. A.R. submits that credit is not admissible because the credit is available only up to the place of removal and in this case is the place of removal is factory gate whereas credit has been availed in respect of export of the goods. I find that the ld. Commissioner for allowing the credit has relied upon the following Tribunal's decisions.
(i) CCE Vs. Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. -, 2008 (232) ELT 0804 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

(ii) CCE Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. -, 2008 (230) ELT 569 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

(iii) CCE Vs. Vhamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. - : 2010 (258) ELT 141 (Tri. - Bang.)

In these cases it has been held that in the case of F.O.B. exports, load port has to be considered as place of removal and therefore credit is admissible. Since Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal and no contrary decision of a higher forum has been produced before me for differing with the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Commissioner, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly reject the same.

(Pronounced in the Court)