9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax liability on the services received from GTA in terms of Service Tax Rules, 1994 on inward and outward freight and were utilizing the Cenvat Credit for payment of duty. During the period 1/1/2005 to 31/5/2007, the respondents/assessee have taken the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods. Show-cause notice was issued for the recovery of service tax credit availed on the said outward services for export as irregularly availed Cenvat Credit. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice. Aggrieved of such dropping of the proceedings, Department filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) also relied upon the decision of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the goods. It is undisputed in this case that the Cenvat Credit has been availed by the respondents on the service tax paid on the outward transportation of finished goods for export. It is also not disputed that the goods are sold by the respondents either on FOB basis or CIF basis, records indicate that the responsibility of the seller is up to the port of shipment. If that be so, the issue will cover in favour of assessee by a series of judgments of this Tribunal which have held that the port has to be considered as the place of removal of the consignments meant for export. If that be so, the credit availed on the service tax paid on the outward transportation cannot be denied to the respondents/assessee. I also find that the point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances as submitted by the learned advocate the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the appellants vide the following decisions of the Tribunal. (a) CCE, Surat v. Colour Synth Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 309 (Tri. -Ahmd.) (b) CCE, Rajkot v. Rolex Rings, P. Ltd. - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri. -Ahmd.) (c) CCE, Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 593 (Tri.-Ahmd.).= 2008 (232) E.L.T. 804 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (d) CCE, Ahmedabad v. finecare Bio-systems - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 701 (Tribunal = 2009 (244) E.L.T. 372 (Tribunal) 3. Further, he has also submitted that the decision in the case of ABB Ltd. [2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
