Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (9) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bt that in each and every case, it is necessary to consider as to exactly which is the place of removal before allowing the benefit of CENVAT credit - In case of CCE v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 31092 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) held that the services of CHA required to facilitate clearance of final products from place of removal i.e., place of export are entitled for input service credit - Decided in the favour of the assessee - E/725&726/2009-MUM - A/597-598/10/SMB/C-IV - Dated:- 29-9-2010 - ASHOK JINDAL, J. ORDER 1. The appellants have filed these appeals against the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on CHA services for the export of the impugned goods. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich has defined the place of removal. He further submitted that in case of CCE v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. [2009] 19 STT 239 (Ahd. - CESTAT) this Tribunal has dealt with in detail and arrived at a decision that the services of CHA required to facilitate clearance of final products from place of removal i.e., place of export are entitled for input service credit. Further, he prayed that in view of above decisions, the impugned order be set aside and the appeals be allowed. 4. On the other hand the learned DR submitted that the services of CHA are no where related to the use in or in relation1 to the manufacture of the final product and input service credit on the services of CHA are to be denied. In support of his contention he placed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be the place of removal in such cases. I find that the clarification issued by the CBEC in the circular cited above is very relevant and therefore para 8.2 of the circular is reproduced below : 8.2 In this connection, the phrase place of removal needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and the applicable provisions. The phrase place of removal has not bin defined, in CENVAT Credit Rules. In terms of sub-rule(t) of rule 2 of the said rules, if any words or expressions are used in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and are not defined therein but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they shall have the same meaning for the CENVAT Credit Rules as assigned to them in those Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place. From the circular, it is quite clear that in case where the sale is on FOB/CIF bases, the place of removal has to be the load port only. Further the definition of input services also has been defined to mean any service rendered in relation to outward .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it. Therefore any decision rendered in an individual case cannot be applied to another case unless the facts happen to be same. Therefore the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd. s case cannot be considered and applied to the cases under consideration now. On the other hand I find that the decision of the Tribunal cited by the ld. Advocate for the respondents is applicable on facts and this decision has also considered the decision in M/s. Excel Crop Care Ltd. and has distinguished the same. I am in full agreement with the decision cited by the ld. Advocate and in view of the discussions above, the appeals filed by the Department are without merit and accordingly are rejected. 8. In view of the above, I find that the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates