Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 5 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit on Tour Operators Service denied - transportation of their employees between the factory and their place of residence - Held that:- This issue is no longer res integra as decided in C.C.E., Bangalore vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held that Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to these workers to reach the factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. In fact the employee is also entitled to conveyance allowance. It also would form part of a condition of service and the amounts spent on the conveyance of the employees is also a factory which will be taken into consideration by the employees in fixing the price of the final product. To ensure that the work force comes on time at the work place, the employers have taken this measure which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. At any rate it is an activity relating to business - in favour of assessee. CENVAT credit on CHA service denied - used by the assessee for export of goods during the period from June 2007 to September 2008 - Held that:- There is only one definition of place of removal under the Central Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder whether for the purpose of valuation of excisable goods or for the purpose of determination of claim of CENVAT credit or for any other purpose whatsoever. The question whether the port of export could be considered to be place of removal of excisable goods was examined by the division bench in the KUNTAL GRANITES case [2007 (3) TMI 540 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] with reference to the definition of place of removal under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise as also to Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. On a harmonious construction of the provisions, it was held that, in respect of the excisable goods cleared from factory for export and subsequently shipped from the port, the port of export could be held to be the place of removal . In view of this decision, it has to be held that the respondents were entitled to treat CHA service/GTA service as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as these services were used for clearance of excisable goods from the place of removal - in favour of assessee.
|