Case Law Details
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Nelcast Limited (CESTAT Chennai)
The issue is whether the respondent is eligible to avail credit on input services on freight charges and CHA services availed upto the port for export of goods. The Board vide Circular stated supra has clarified as under:-
“5. Clearance of goods for exports from a factory can be of two types. The goods may be exported by the manufacturer directly to his foreign buyer or the goods may be cleared from the factory for export by a merchant exporter.
6. In the case of clearance of goods for export by manufacturer exporter, shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and goods are handed over to the shipping line. After Let Export Order is issued, it is the responsibility of the shipping line to ship the goods to the foreign buyer with the exporter having no control over the goods. In such a situation, transfer of property can be said to have taken place at the port where the shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and place of removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say, eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly.”
The learned AR appearing for the department has argued that the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench. On perusal of the interim order dated 8.6.2020, we find that the issue that is referred to the Larger Bench is whether the factory gate or the buyer’s premises can be considered as the place of removal for the purposes of availing credit on outward transportation charges. In the present case, the goods having been exported, there is no doubt that the place of removal is the port of export as clarified by the Board circular.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
