1. There is no representation for the respondent in appeal No.E/245/2010 despite notice. However, as the issue involved in the case is similar to one of the issues involved in the other two appeals, I am inclined to take up the said appeal No.E/245/2010 also for disposal.

2. In appeals Nos.E/1621 and 1622/2010 filed by the department, two issues arise for consideration viz., (i) whether the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit on CHA service which was used in connection with export of certain goods during 2008-09. (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit on 'Business Auxiliary Services' received from foreign and domestic commission agents during 2008-09. The lone issue involved in the first appeal is analogous to the first issue stated above.

3. It is submitted by the learned Superintendent (AR) that the interpretation given to 'place of removal' by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. The definition of 'place of removal' given under section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act is meant only for valuation purpose and the same cannot be applied to issues related to CENVAT credit. In this connection, reliance is placed on CCE&ST v. ABB Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 141 (Kar.). It is argued that, as per the Hon'ble High Court's decision, the definition of 'place of removal' cannot be applied in the context of determining the respondent's eligibility for CENVAT credit. Therefore, the CHA service availed by M/s. Easwar Rubber Products or the GTA service availed by M/s. Pokarna Ltd. cannot be said to be 'input services' used for clearance of final products from the 'place of removal'. In this connection, it is pointed out that this question stands referred by a learned Single Member to Division Bench in the case of CCE v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 102 (New Delhi - CESTAT). It is further pointed out that any decision by Division Bench on the referred issue is yet to come. The learned Superintendent (AR) has also submitted that there is no nexus between the input services and the manufacture of the exported goods. For all these reasons, the impugned orders are said to be unsustainable in law.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for M/s. Easwar Rubber Products that the question whether they were entitled to take CENVAT credit on CHA service is impliedly covered in their favour by the Division Bench's decision in the case of Kuntal Granites Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.-Bang.) and therefore the issue can be settled without waiting for any decision on the referred issue.

5. As regards the CENVAT credit taken on 'Business Auxiliary Service', it is submitted by the learned counsel that the services of commission agents were availed for collecting purchase orders for the manufacture and supply of goods and therefore such services would qualify to be 'input services' for the respondent. Insofar as 'Business Auxiliary Service' received from foreign commission agent is concerned, the service tax was paid by the respondent in the reverse charge mechanism and they were entitled to take credit thereof by virtue of Rule 3(1)(ixa) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

6. I have also heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) on the above issue related to 'Business Auxiliary Service'.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions.

(i) Whether the respondents were entitled to claim CENVAT credit on GTA service/CHA service availed for export of excisable goods during the relevant period.

It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the definition of 'place of removal' is applicable only to valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of levy of duty. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra). I find that clause (t) of Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not taken into account by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while holding that the definition of 'place of removal' was applicable only to valuation of excisa