At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
For Petitioner: H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate And For Respondents: Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.)
1. The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on the freight outward service in respect of removal of goods for export.
2. Shri S.G. Dharmadhikari, Ld. Counsel along with Ms. Lalita Phadke, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that credit was availed in respect of outward freight which was used for clearance of goods for export to the port of export. She referred to the export documents wherein she pointed out that terms of the export as CIF, Jabal Ali, Dubai. Accordingly all the expenses after the delivery of goods to the foreign buyer is born by the appellant. In the present case outward freight on which the credit was availed is only upto the port of export, since the obligation of transportation and delivery of the goods upto the foreign buyer is with the appellant. The place of removal in any case is port of export therefore the input service namely outward freight service used for transportation of goods upto the port of export is upto place of removal, accordingly credit is admissible. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments:
"(i) Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot v. Rolex Rings P. Ltd. 2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri.-Ahmd.
(ii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat v. Colour Synth Industries P. Ltd : 2009 (14) STR 309 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(iii) Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., Bangalore 2010 (19) STR 69 (Tri.-Bang.)
(iv) Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem P. Ltd: 2008 (232 E.L.T. 804 (Tri.Ahmd.)
(v) Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur : 2007 (8) S.T.R. 575 (Tri.Del.)
(vi) Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd : 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.)
(vii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad v. Fine Care Biosystems : 2009 (244) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(viii) L.G. Electronics (India)Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Noida : 2010 (19) STR 340 (Tri.-Del.)
(ix) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III : 2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom.)
(x) Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I : 2008 (10) STR 382 (Tri.-Mumbai)"
3. On the other hand Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal on the case of Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV: 2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri.-Chan.)
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find from the facts that the outward transportation is in respect of the export goods for delivery at the port. On perusal of the export documents, it is clear that the appellant is responsible for delivery of the export goods upto the place of foreign buyer therefore in India the place of removal is the port of export. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal that in case of port of export being a place of removal, all the services upto the export of goods from the p
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ort of export shall be treated as input service and the credit is admissible. Accordingly, in the present case also the port of export being place of removal the outward freight service is an admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.