Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Somaiya Organo Chemicals vs Cce & Customs, Aurangabad on 21 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/98/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JAK 9268) 103/08 dated 12.11.08 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Somaiya Organo Chemicals
:
Appellants
Versus
CCE & Customs, Aurangabad
Respondents
Appearance Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate for Appellants Shri N.A. Sayyad, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 21.09.10 Date of Decision : 21.09.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the denial of Cenvat credit availed on the service tax paid on the insurance policy in respect of the goods transported from the factory to port of export.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that, in case of export of goods, it has been held by this Tribunal in several cases that input service includes services rendered for outward transportation upto place of removal of goods and service tax paid to facilitate goods to reach place of removal has to be eligible for benefit of CENVAT credit and in this case the insurance service has also been taken for transportation of goods from the factory to the port of export, hence, the insurance policy taken by them is involved in the business activity upto the place of removal of goods. In that situation denial of input service credit is not sustainable. To support his contention he placed reliance on L.G. Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Noida 2010 (19) S.T.R. 340 (Tri. Del.), Modern Petrofils vs. CCE Vadodara 2010 (253) ELT 609 (Tri. Ahmd.), CCE Rajkot vs Rolex Rings P. Ltd. 2008 (230 ELT 569 (Tri. Ahmd.) and CCE Rajkot vs Adani Pharmachem P. Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 593 (Tri. Ahmd.).
3. On the other hand the learned DR for the Revenue submits that the issue of service credit on the insurance policy for transportation of goods is pending before Karnataka High Court, hence, this matter not to be decided at this stage.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The contention of the learned DR is not acceptable as in the case of ABB Ltd. which is pending in the High Court of Karnataka is in regard to for outward transportation agency services whether the service credit is available to the assessee or not. In this case, the issue before me is that whether the appellant is entitled for input service credit for the insurance of transportation of goods upto the port of export. As in the case of Modern Petrofils (supra) this Tribunal has held that service tax paid on GTA services for outward freight from factory to port of export is entitled as input service credit. It is not in dispute that the appellants have insured their goods for transportation upto the port. Hence, following the precedent decision of this Tribunal, I hold the appellants are entitled for input service credit for insurance paid on transportation of their goods upto the port of export.
6. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3