Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St (Ltu), Mumbai vs Welspun Corporation Ltd on 23 October, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/86049/17
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SK/88/LTU/MUM/ 2016-17 dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri 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 No 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?
CCE & ST (LTU), Mumbai
Appellant
Vs.
Welspun Corporation Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri H.M. Dixit, AC(AR) for the appellant Shri Ramnath Prabhu, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 29.09.2017 Date of decision : 23.10.2017 O R D E R No: ..
Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed refund of service tax by the appellants on service of GTA availed for transport of export goods from factory to port.
2. Ld. AR argued that the said service has not been used by the respondent but by the merchant exporter and therefore the appellants are not entitled to credit and no entitled to refund of said credit under notification 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007.
3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that they are paying for those services and in respect of exports Board has already held that the port of export would be the place of removal. He pointed out in such circumstances, neither credit of the said service can be denied nor it can be said that the said services were not availed by the respondent but by the merchant exporter.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions.
5. I find that the respondent had asserted that they are paying for the said services, consequently, they are liable to pay service tax on the said GTA service. I also find that CBEC has clarified in respect of export the port of export would be the place of removal. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the grounds of argument of revenue that the service has been availed by the merchant exporter and not by the respondent. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (Pronounced in Court on ..............................) (Raju) Member (Technical) //SR
- 2 -
E/86049/17