9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 575 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit on CHA service - place of removal when goods removed for export but destroyed before export - Held that - When the goods are removed from the factory for export purposes and the goods are destroyed due to unavoidable reasons, accident caused to the lorry, then in such a circumstances the goods are not deemed to have been removed from the factory gate in terms of Section 5 of the CST Act as sale has not been completed. Section 4(3)(c) of C.E. Act clearly explains that the place of removal is the premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. In the present case, the goods were exported and when export documents are presented to the Customs office, then that is the place of removal as per Section 5 of C.E. Act. The same finding has been rendered by this bench in the case of Koeleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore 2005 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . Thus no reason to take a different view from the same - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the respondent was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on CHA service for export of excisable goods. 2. Interpretation of the definition of "place of removal" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Central Excise Act. Analysis: 1. The first issue in this appeal pertains to the entitlement of the respondent to claim CENVAT credit on CHA service for the export of excisable goods. The Tribunal examined the submissions made by both parties and referred to previous decisions relied upon by the respondent. The Tribunal considered the definition of "place of removal" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and noted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision did not account for Rule 2(t) of the Rules, which states that words and expressions not defined in the Rules but defined in the Excise Act shall have meanings assigned in the Act. This implies that the definition of place of removal under the Central Excise Act applies to cases under the CENVAT Credit Rules as well. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support this interpretation. 2. The second issue involves the interpretation of the definition of "place of removal" under the Central Excise Act in the context of export goods. The Tribunal referred to Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, which defines place of removal as the premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after clearance from the factory. The Tribunal discussed the presentation of export documents to Customs officers as the point of sale for export goods, emphasizing that the place of removal for export goods is when these documents are presented. The Tribunal cited various cases and rulings to support this interpretation and rejected the Revenue's reliance on a previous ruling that did not consider the relevant provisions of the law. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the interpretation of the CENVAT credit rules and the definition of place of removal under the Central Excise Act in the context of export goods. The decision was made after considering the legal points raised by both parties and analyzing relevant precedents and provisions of the law.
|
