2012 (6) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t), Mumbai is a manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.1,49,184/- towards service tax paid on courier services and outward air freight. The department was of the view that there is no nexus between the services availed and the manufacture of the goods and hence they were not entitled for the cenvat credit. On pointing out, the appellant reversed a credit of Rs.18,105/- towards courier services and contested the eligibility to credit of service tax paid on air freight. After issue of notice, the case was adjudicated vide ordere dated 28-2-2011 and the adjudicating authority denied the credit on the ground that in respect of the goods manufactured by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, prays for waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. 4. The ld. AR appearing for Revenue strongly opposes the stay application. He submits that the air-freight incurred is to destinations abroad and if the appellant's contention is accepted, then the place of removal will be not in India but in foreign countries which is absurd. Therefore, he pleads that the appellant be put to terms. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have also perused the invoices involved in these transactions. The transactions relate to exports and the air freight has been incurred for transportation from India to abroad. The element of air freight is included in the assessable value of the goods exported. The issue to be decided is whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per section 1(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the said Act extends to the whole of India. It that be so, the place of removal for the purposes of levy of excise duty has to be in India and not anywhere else. Therefore, merely because as per the terms of export contract, the goods have to be delivered at the customer's premises abroad, can it be said that the place of removal is extended to a place outside India? Such an interpretation, in my view would be quite absurd and will have unintended ramifications. The terms of the export contract cannot determine the place of removal when the Act itself defines the same under section 4(3)(c) for the purposes of central excise levy. Therefore, the appellant's contention that in the instant case....