<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (10) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399464</link>
    <description>The amended Cenvat definition of input service, using &quot;upto&quot; the place of removal, was applied to export clearances by a manufacturer-exporter by treating port clearance as the relevant endpoint. In that setting, property in the goods passes only when the shipping bill is filed and the Let Export Order is obtained, so CHA, C&amp;F, testing and sampling services used at the port before that stage fall within clearance up to the place of removal. Services availed at the port were therefore treated as eligible input services for Cenvat credit, and the contrary view was rejected as based on an incorrect reading of &quot;upto&quot; and on inapposite authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399464</link>
      <description>The amended Cenvat definition of input service, using &quot;upto&quot; the place of removal, was applied to export clearances by a manufacturer-exporter by treating port clearance as the relevant endpoint. In that setting, property in the goods passes only when the shipping bill is filed and the Let Export Order is obtained, so CHA, C&amp;F, testing and sampling services used at the port before that stage fall within clearance up to the place of removal. Services availed at the port were therefore treated as eligible input services for Cenvat credit, and the contrary view was rejected as based on an incorrect reading of &quot;upto&quot; and on inapposite authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>