2015 (11) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - GTA service - Held that - service of GTA is in respect of transportation of empty container from container yard to the factory and from factory to port of export towards stuff container has not been under dispute. The Cenvat credit was denied on the ground that since it is outward transportation beyond the place of removal ie. factory gate therefore it is not covered under the definition of input service. Firstly, there is no dispute that the entire transportation in respect of export goods. It is settled in the catena of judgments and also now in the Board circular when the transportation is of export goods, the place of removal stand extended to the port of export, therefore it is clearly covered by the definition of input service as applicable at the relevant time wherein transportation up to the place of removal was explicitly included in the definition of input service. Therefore in my considered view, in the present case GTA service for transportation of export goods is input service and Cenvat credit is legally admissible. - From the findings of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case, the issue disputed in the present case has been settled, accordingly appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of GTA used for transportation of export goods as well as for bringing empty container to their factory. I therefore set aside the orders-in-appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for GTA service - transportation of empty container to the factory and then to the port.

Analysis:
The appeals were against orders upholding the demand of Cenvat credit for GTA service. The issue revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for transportation of empty containers to the factory and then to the port. The contention was that outward transportation beyond the factory gate was not covered under the definition of input service. The appellant argued that the Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by considering issues beyond the definition of input service. The appellant also highlighted that the Commissioner disputed documentation and invoices, which were already detailed in the show cause notice.

The Assistant Commissioner reiterated that the Cenvat Credit for GTA service was taken for the clearance of goods from the factory to the port of export, which was considered outward transportation beyond the place of removal. The place of removal was defined as the factory, and transportation beyond that point was deemed inadmissible as per the definition of input service.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the transportation service for export goods, including the transportation of empty containers to the factory and then to the port, was not in dispute. It was established that when the transportation is for export goods, the place of removal extends to the port of export. Therefore, it fell within the definition of input service at the relevant time. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in a similar case where Cenvat credit was allowed for transportation of empty containers for export goods. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit for the transportation of export goods and bringing empty containers to the factory.

Based on the previous judgment and the definition of input service, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders-in-appeal and granting the appellant the Cenvat Credit for GTA service used in the transportation of export goods and empty containers to the factory.