9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 328 - AT - Service TaxCenvat Credit- The issue involved in this case is admissibility of Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on GTA services for outward freight from factory to port of export. Held that- port of shipment can be considered as place of removal, and assessee entitled to credit of Service tax paid on freight till port of shipment.
Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on GTA services for outward freight from factory to port of export.
Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case pertains to the admissibility of Cenvat credit for Service tax paid on GTA services for outward freight from the factory to the port of export. The impugned order concluded that the credit is not admissible as the place of removal is considered to be the factory in the appellant's case. 2. The appellant did not appear, but written submissions were made. The learned advocate argued that the place of removal could be the port of shipment, not just limited to a factory, warehouse, or depot. It was emphasized that the issue did not involve outward freight for domestic clearances, and the focus was on whether the port of shipment could be deemed as the place of removal. The advocate highlighted that all exports were made on FOB/CIF basis, which was undisputed. The advocate referenced several Tribunal decisions supporting the appellant's stance. 3. The advocate also pointed out that the decision in the case of ABB Ltd., which was stayed, would not impact the legal position established by the Tribunal in the aforementioned decisions. The Tribunal agreed with the submissions made by the advocate and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the place of removal concerning the admissibility of Cenvat credit for Service tax paid on GTA services for outward freight in export scenarios. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and previous Tribunal rulings supporting the appellant's argument regarding the port of shipment as the place of removal.
|
