9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturing unit only. ICD/Port will also fall within the definition of Place of Removal as held by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Inductotherm [ 2014 (3) TMI 921 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]. Therefore, all expenses incurred from the factory gate upto ICD/Port of Shipment would also be within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which allows Cenvat Credit upto the place of Removal . The ratio laid down in the Ultra Tech Cement [ 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT ] and Ispat Industry [ 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT ] are fully met in the present case. Accordingly, the appellant would be eligible for the Cenvat Credit for the Service Tax paid on such services. In the Ultra Tech case cited by the Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing agent for rendering the services, the Appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.2,86,813/-. Show Cause Notice was issued demanding reversal of the Cenvat Credit on the ground that the services have been rendered are beyond the place of removal. The demand came to be confirmed at the Adjudication and Lower Appellate Level. Hence the Appellant is before the Tribunal. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the Appellant states that the issue pertains to eligibility of Cenvat Credit for the services rendered by the CHA during and subsequent to the movement of the goods from the factory premises till their final clearance from the Port. He relies on the judgment of Hon ble High Court, Gujarat in the case of Central Excise Vs. Inductother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice under the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. He further submits that relying upon the Gujarat High Court judgment, the appeal was allowed by the Hon ble Division Bench. 2.1 He also submits that the issue of place of removal has been fully resolved as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Ispat industry 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC). 3. The Learned Authorized Representative submits that the Ispat Industry case deals with the issue pertaining to Place of Removal which would be applicable in the present case. He relies on the Board s Circular dated 08/06/2018 and submits that Circular dated 28/02/2015 would be applicable for exports. He also relies on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CCE ST vs. Ult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say, eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly. 6. Therefore, even going by the above Circular, the ICD/Port of shipment is nothing but the extended location of the manufacturing unit only. ICD/Port will also fall within the definition of Place of Removal as held by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Inductotherm case cited supra. Therefore, all expenses incurred from the factory gate upto ICD/Port of Shipment would also be within the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which allows Cenvat Credit upto the place of Removal . Therefore, the ratio laid down in the Ultra Tech Cement and Ispat Industry are fully met in the present case. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
