TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 - Dated:- 6-1-2011 - M V R avindran , J. For Appellant : Mr K S Chandrasekhar, JDR For Respondent : Ms Tejasvi Hari Krishna, Adv. Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.04/2010(H-IV)(D)CE dt. 29/1/2010. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents/assessee are manufacturers of duty paid goods falling under First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing Cenvat Credit on input services as per provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They were discharging the service tax liability on the services received from GTA in terms of Service Tax Rules, 1994 on inward and outward freight and were utilizing the Cenvat Credit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Karnataka. 4. Ld. Counsel would submit that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Petrofils Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010(18) STR 625 (Tri. Ahmd.)] has, in an identical situation, held that the port of shipment can be considered as place of removal and assessees entitled for the credit of service tax paid on freight till port of shipment. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on the outward transportation of the goods. It is undisputed in this case that the Cenvat Credit has been availed by the respondents on the service tax paid on the outward transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant's contention that port of shipment would be place of removal is not correct. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The learned advocate for the appellants had submitted that the matter does not involve an issue of outward freight for domestic clearances at all. Therefore the limited issue to be decided is whether port of shipment can be considered as place of removal. It was also submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that in all the cases, exports were made on FOB/CIF basis. This has not been contradicted. Under these circumstances as submitted by the learned advocate the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the appellants vide the following decisions of the Tribunal. (a) CCE, Surat v. Colour Syn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
