CESTAT, BANGAORE BENCH
Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam
V/s.
GMR Industries Ltd.
Appeal no. e/105 of 2010
DECEMBER 30, 2011
ORDER
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the short question which has to be considered in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT credit of service tax paid by themselves on GTA service which was used for transportation of their final product from factory to the port for export. The respondent recovered FOB value from the foreign buyer, implying that the ownership of the goods vested in the respondent upto the place and time of loading of the goods into the ship. If the appellant had duty liability, they would have paid it on an assessable value including the freight. On these facts, it can be held that the place of removal of the goods was the port of export. The definition of ‘input service’ under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will squarely cover the above service which was used by the respondent for transportation of the goods from the factory to the place of removal.
2. The above view is seen to have been taken in two decisions of this Tribunal cited by the learned counsel, viz. Cauvery Stones Impex (P.). Ltd. v. CCE [2010] 24 STT 400 (Chennai-CESTAT) and CCE v. Stangl Pickles & Preserves [Appeal No. E/629/2010, dated 3-2-2011]. There is no reason to take a different view.
3. The impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.
