2019 (4) TMI 746 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant wins Cenvat Credit for port charges in ownership dispute

M/s. Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida

The appellant was granted Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on Terminal Handling Charges and Ground rent at the port. The Tribunal held that the ... CENVAT credit - input services - Terminal Handling Charges - Ground rent - place of removal - services received beyond factory gate - Held that:- The appellant remains the owner of the goods till the goods are handed over to buyer at buyer’s premises, the place of removal in the present case is port, ICD or CFS as the case may be - in the present case appellant were entitled for Cenvat Credit claimed by them on Terminal Handling Charges and Ground rent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on Terminal Handling Charges and Ground rent at the port.Analysis:1. Issue of Admissibility of Cenvat Credit: The main issue in this case revolved around whether the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on Terminal Handling Charges and Ground rent at the port. The lower authorities had denied the Cenvat credit, arguing that the factory gate was the place of removal, and thus, Service Tax paid on services beyond the factory gate did not qualify as input services. However, the appellant contended that based on Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the place of removal for export goods by the manufacturer would be the port, ICD, or CFS. The appellant remained the owner of the goods until they were handed over to the buyer at the buyer's premises, as per the agreement and confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals).2. Interpretation of Circulars and Ownership of Goods: The Tribunal considered the Circulars and the fact that the appellant retained ownership of the goods until delivery to the buyer at the buyer's premises. Based on this, it was determined that the place of removal in this case would be the port, ICD, or CFS. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was indeed entitled to the Cenvat Credit claimed on Terminal Handling Charges and Ground rent. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting Circulars issued by the relevant authorities and analyzing the ownership of goods in determining the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on specific charges at the port. The decision highlighted the significance of the place of removal in such cases and clarified the eligibility criteria for claiming Cenvat Credit in similar scenarios.