Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune on 9 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/805/10 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VKS/31/2010 dt. 12/2/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune-I ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, 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 : 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?
====================================================== M/s. Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune :
Respondent Appearance Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt.Commr. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 09/09/2016 Date of pronouncement: 30/12/2016 ORDER NO.
The fact of the present case is that the appellants claim refund is in respect of unutilized Cenvat Credit which was partially allowed and part of the amount was rejected on the ground that the refund is in respect of the Cenvat Credit on outward transportation for removal of goods for export which is beyond the place of removal, hence not covered under the definition of input service.
2. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the service of GTA is in respect of transportation of goods from factory to the port for clearance of export goods. Therefore credit is admissible. He placed reliance on the following judgments and Board Circular:
(i) Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur 2015 (40) S.T.R. 693 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(ii) Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Pune-III 2016 (41) STR 773 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(iii) Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I 2016 (41) STR 900 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(iv) Alps Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun 2016 (42) S.T.R. 370 (Tri.-Del.)
(v) Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Thane-I 2016 (43) S.T.R. 209 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(vi) Central Excise Vs. Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd.
2014 (36) S.T.R. 994 (Guj.).
(vii) Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Order No. A/85726-=85727/16/SMB
(viii) Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2013 (30) S.T.R. 572 (Tri.- Mumbai.
(ix) Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dt. 28.2.2015.
3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the fact is not under dispute that the GTA service was availed by the appellant in respect of removal of export goods from their factory to the port of export. It was held in number of cases, in case of exports the place of removal stands extended to the port of export as the ownership of the export goods remains with the exporter till the goods is shipped and sailed to foreign country from the port. Therefore, the port being a place of removal the cenvat credit in respect of GTA from factory to the port of export is clearly admissible. All the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel supports my above view. Following the ratio of the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel and as per my discussion made hereinabove, the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit of GTA consequently the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is also admissible. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in court on 30/12/2016 )
(Ramesh Nair)
Member (Judicial)
SM.
3
Appeal No. E/805/10