Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Multi-Flex Lami Print Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.E/1231/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.US/4/RGD/2011 dated 03/06/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) 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 :Yes 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? ========================================
Multi-Flex Lami Print Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Raigad Appearance: Ms.Aparna H, Advocate for appellant Shri.HM Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 15/03/2016 Date of Decision : /2016 ORDER NO Per: Raju
1. The appellants are in appeal against the demand of Rs.66,580/- along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department denied Cenvat credit of service tax paid on CHA services which is utilized by the appellant for the export of the goods.
2. The contention of the appellant is that the department had denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the services provided by the CHA was beyond the place of removal. The contention of the applicant is that this Tribunal has been taken consistent view in this regard and held that in case of exports, place of removal to be taken as port of export.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the definition of place of removal have been clarified by CBEC Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28-2-2015 in para 6 of the circular it has been clarified as follows:
6.?In the case of clearance of goods for export by manufacturer exporter, shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and goods are handed over to the shipping line. After Let Export Order is issued, it is the responsibility of the shipping line to ship the goods to the foreign buyer with the exporter having no control over the goods. In such a situation, transfer of property can be said to have taken place at the port where the shipping bill is filed by the manufacturer exporter and place of removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say, eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly.
4. Learned AR relies on the order.
5. I have gone through the rival submissions.
6. I find that the matter has been clarified by the CBEC vide aforesaid Circular and it is not in dispute that the appellants are manufacturers exporters.
7. In view of the circular of the CBEC, the credit of the CHA services cannot be denied to them, the appeal is accordingly allowed. (Pronounced in Court on ..) (Raju) Member (Technical) pj 1 3 Appeal No.E/1231/11