2018 (12) TMI 1177 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – parcel services which were utilised for exports beyond the place of removal – Held that:- Identical issue came up before the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Imperial Auto Industries [2017 (4) TMI 1048 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that credit on courier and transportation charges to the respondent for transportation of the goods to the foreign buyer premises allowed – credit allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – APPEAL No. E/30418/2018 – A/31590/2018 – Dated:- 21-12-2018 – Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri P. Venkata Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-SC- AP2-0173-17-18-ST, dated 09.01.2018. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, af
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ity, after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised along with interest and also imposed penalties, holding that the place of removal in the case in hand is the factory premises and the responsibility of the appellant ceases the moment cargo is handed over to the carrier/shipping agency. On an appeal, the first appellate authority also held the same view. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that identical issue came up before the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Imperial Auto Industries [2017-TIOL-2446-CESTAT-CHD]. The entire judgment of the Tribunal is reproduced. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles parts. During the course of scrutiny of the records, it was observed that the respondent availed credit on courier/freight services used for delivery/transportation of the goods from port of export to foreign b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
credit availed by the respondents. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR submits that in any case of exports, the port of export is the place of removal of the goods and the credit is available to the respondent upto the place of export and not beyond that. He has relied on the CBEC circular No.999/6/2015-Cx dt.28.2.2015 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv.Ltd.-2016 (43) STR 209 (Tri.-Mum.). 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the learned AR an submits that the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv. Ltd. is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, the assessee took the credit on business support service, namely, terminal handling charges and documentation charges. In the said case, it is not coming out whether the goods have been delivered to the destination of the buyer or not and delivered the goods upto the premises of the buyers. The ownership re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
both sides and considered the submissions. 6. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that in the case of export of the goods, place of removal is port of export and to that extent, they have relied on para 4 of the circular dated 28.2.2015. which reads as under: 4. In most of the cases, therefore, it would appear that handing over of the goods to the carrier/transporter for further delivery of the goods to the buyer, with the seller not reserving the right of disposal of the goods, would lead to passing on of the property in goods from the seller to the buyer and it is the factory gate or the warehouse or the depot of the manufacturer which would be the place of removal since it is here that the goods are handed over to the transporter for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. It is in this backdrop that the eligibility to Cenvat Credit on related input services has to be determined. 7. It is clarified in the above circular that if the seller does not reserve its right for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step (b) the seller bore the risk of loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and (c) the freight charges were integral part of the price of goods. 9. Admittedly, the respondent has compiled with these conditions, in that circumstance, I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the credit on courier and transportation charges to the respondent for transportation of the goods to the foreign buyer premises. It is not disputed that the respondent has not paid service tax. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced order that the facts in the case in hand and the facts in that case are the same. Since the facts and circumstances of this case being the same, impugned order is set aside and appeal stands a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =