Cenvat credit on CHA/C&F service etc. at Port as per Board's Circular Dt 28.2.15

[G GOSWAMI]

This refers to the Para 6 of the Board’s Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX Dated 28.2.2015 wherein it has been clarified that “………place of removal would be this Port/ICD/CFS. Needless to say, eligibility to CENVAT Credit shall be determined accordingly”.

Though it has been held in several prominent judicial pronouncement and the Board’s Circular No. 97/8/2007 Dt.23.8.2007, that in respect of the excisable goods cleared from factory for export and subsequently shipped from the port, the port of export could be held to be the ‘place of removal’ and the manufacturer exporters are entitled to treat CHA service/CandF Service/GTA service/other expenses at port area as ‘input services’ under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as these services were used for clearance of excisable goods from the ‘place of removal’,- the Excise authority is still issuing demand notice in this issue and the lower authority is also confirming the same. My earnest request to kindly opine on this Board’s Circular dated 28.2.2015 whether -

1. - it has retrospective effect since the same is clarificatory in nature.

2. -now pending adjudication on this issue could be adjudicated in favour of the assessee since this circular is binding in nature to the Department..

3.- issuing of pending/forthcoming demand notice (generally raised out of Audit objection) could be stopped.

4. -how the assessee could be benefited from this new circular.

Regards,

G.Goswami, 9.3.2015

AI Summary

Clarification on Board's Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX: Impact on CENVAT Credit for Export and Freight Transport Services A discussion on a forum revolves around the clarification provided by the Board's Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.2.2015 regarding the 'place of removal' for export purposes and its impact on CENVAT credit eligibility. The original query raises concerns about whether the circular has a retrospective effect, its binding nature, and its potential to halt demand notices. A respondent argues that the circular pertains to input service credit on freight transportation up to the place of removal, not on services like CHA/CandF performed post-manufacture. The discussion highlights differing interpretations and requests further insights on the circular's implications.