Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1030 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - clearing and forwarding services - reversal of the Cenvat Credit demanded on the ground that the services have been rendered are beyond the place of removal - HELD THAT:- Generally the manufacturer has to move the goods from his factory premises to the ICD/Port of Shipment and then only the physical exports of goods can take place after filing the Shipping Bill and necessary clearance is given by the Customs Department. Para 6 of the Board Circular No.999/6/2015-CX dated 28.2.2015 states that the ICD/Port of shipment is nothing but the extended location of the manufacturing unit only. ICD/Port will also fall within the definition of ‘Place of Removal’ as held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Inductotherm [2014 (3) TMI 921 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore, all expenses incurred from the factory gate upto ICD/Port of Shipment would also be within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which allows Cenvat Credit ‘upto the place of Removal’. The ratio laid down in the Ultra Tech Cement [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] and Ispat Industry [2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] are fully met in the present case. Accordingly, the appellant would be eligible for the Cenvat Credit for the Service Tax paid on such services. In the Ultra Tech case cited by the Learned Authorized Representative, The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that after amendment of Rule 2(l) with effect from 01/03/2008, the Appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat Credit for the freight expenses incurred ‘from the Place of Removal’. In the present case, the services are rendered ‘upto the place of Removal’. Hence, the ratio Laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fully met. The Aditya Birla Case [2021 (1) TMI 709 - CESTAT KOLKATA] cited by the Learned Authorized Representative is on a different issue and is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Since the material facts are same in the present case, respectfully following the decision of Division Bench in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1023 - CESTAT KOLKATA] the present Appellant is eligible for the Cenvat Credit taken by them. Appeal allowed.
|