Export transport credit on GTA services is admissible when port is the place of removal for exports.

CENVAT credit on GTA service used to transport iron ore up to the port of export was admissible because, in export cases, the port is treated as the place of removal and outward transport to that point falls within credit eligibility. The iron ore remained excisable goods despite attracting nil duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE, and the Tribunal treated the contrary finding on non-manufacture as unsustainable and beyond the show-cause notice. It also noted that entitlement to the same credit had already attained finality in earlier proceedings, so the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on GTA service used for transporting iron ore up to the port of export was admissible, including whether the goods were exempted and whether the place of removal in export cases was the factory or the port.

Analysis: The appellant exported iron ore classifiable under Chapter 26.01 and attracting nil duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE, but remained a manufacturer of excisable goods. The finding that the processing activity did not amount to manufacture was held unsustainable and also beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The dispute on credit eligibility had already attained finality because an earlier appellate order had accepted entitlement to CENVAT credit on the same input service and the Department had not challenged that finding. The Tribunal also noted that, in export cases, settled law treats the port of export as the place of removal, so outward transportation up to the port qualifies for credit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the GTA service was admissible and the assessee succeeded.

---