Case Law Details
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II
v.
Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd.
MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NOS. 221-222 OF 2012 SM(BR), S/229-230 OF 2012 & M/56 OF 2012 – SM
APPLICATION NO. ST/COD/332 OF 2011-SM
APPLICATION NOS. ST/STAY/2619 & 2906 OF 2011-SM
APPEAL NOS. ST/ 1247 & 1392 OF 2010-SM
MARCH 20, 2012
ORDER
1. After condoning the delay in filing the present appeals by the Revenue, I proceed to decide the appeal itself after rejecting the stay petitions. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the respondents are entitled to avail the benefit of credit of Service Tax paid on outward GTA services availed by the respondents up to the place of removal i.e. the port area. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the respondents by observing as under:
“11. From the above definition, it is clear that sale or purchase of goods in case of goods cleared for export is effected by the transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers i.e. when the documents have been handed over of the Customs in the port areas. Thus, the place of removal in case of goods cleared for export is the port area. This has also been held so by the Hon’ble Tribunal in a number of cases. The Hon’ble CESTAT in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Rolex Rings (P.) Ltd. – 2008 (230) ELT 569 (Tri- Ahmd.) has held that the place of removal in case of exported goods is the port area and all the services availed by the exporter till the port area are required to be considered as input service inasmuch as the same are clearly related to the business activities and that the credit of duty paid on such services is admissible. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. – 2008 (12) STR 593 (Tri-Ahmd) cited by the appellants has held that in case where the sale is on FOB/CIF basis, the place of removal has to be load port only. Further in the case of Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem -2010 (18) STR 73 (Tri-Chennai) has held that since the price of the goods exported was on FOB basis and therefore the ownership of the goods exported remained with the assessee up to the port of shipment and they also bore the risk of the goods up to the port of shipment. It was further held that the place of removal is the port and GTA service from factory gate to port of shipment is an input service and hence credit of service tax paid thereon is admissible.”
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that apart from the above decision of the Tribunal, the issue stands decided by the Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of CCE&ST v. ABB Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 141/12 taxmann.com 57 (Kar.) as also in the case of CCE&C v. Parth Poly Wooven (P.) Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 104 (Guj.). As such, I find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeals are accordingly rejected.
3. COD application, Stay petitions as also appeals get disposed of in the above terms.
