2015 (11) TMI 826 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Clearance of goods from place of removal or factory - Held that - 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. - There is no dispute that appellants are manufacturer-exporter and goods have been exported by them and that is why invoices for the various services are in their name. On the basis of such invoices they have availed Cenvat Credit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to credit of Service tax paid on certain services utilized during the export process.
2. Interpretation of the definition of input services under Rule 2(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Determination of the place of removal for goods exported by a manufacturer exporter.
4. Applicability of Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28/2/2015 in relation to the credit eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, availed credit of Service tax paid on services like Cargo Handling, Damage Survey, and L.C. discounting commission/charges during the export process. The main contention was whether these services fall within the definition of input services under Rule 2(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellant's counsel referred to Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28/2/2015, emphasizing that the transfer of property in the case of export by a manufacturer exporter occurs at the port where the shipping bill is filed. This circular clarified that the place of removal for such goods would be the port where the shipping bill is filed, making the appellant eligible for credit as per the input service definition.

3. The Revenue argued that services availed after clearance from the factory or place of removal do not entitle the appellants to credit. However, the appellant cited judgments of Gujarat High Court and this Tribunal to support their claim that the services utilized during the export process are indeed covered within the definition of input services.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and relied on the clarification provided in Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28/2/2015. It was noted that the appellant, being a manufacturer-exporter, exported goods in their name, and the transfer of property was deemed to take place at the port where the shipping bill was filed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarified the eligibility of a manufacturer-exporter to avail Cenvat Credit on services utilized during the export process. By interpreting the definition of input services and determining the place of removal for exported goods, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the Circular's guidance, providing the appellant with the necessary relief.