2019 (2) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appeal memo and synopsis submitted by it is that it is engaged in manufacture of engine valves and supply the said valves to M/s Ford Expana S.L. in Spain. As per agreement and to ensure just-in-time policy of its customer, it has taken warehousing and allied services in Spain. It exports manufactured goods which are stored in warehouse provided to the appellant by one Espack in Spain. The appellant bears the risk of loss or damage to the goods during the transit to the warehouse and the ownership of the goods remains with the appellant till those are delivered to M/s Ford Expana S.L. The appellant paid Service Tax under "Reverse Charge Mechanism" on the aforesaid services under the category of "Business Support Services" and availed CEN....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t case is warehouse or the customer's premises situated in foreign country for which CENVAT credit was justifiably availed, since cost of inputs on service is included in the assessable value of the final product, denial of the same would amount to double taxation. However he contended that "Business Support Services" received by the appellant is an admissible credit as handling, warehousing, packing etc. received from the foreign service providers are used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product, directly or indirectly and therefore, appropriately covered under the definition of input service, which was paid under "Reverse Charge Mechanism" holding place of provisioning of service as in India for which order of Commissioner (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t-department. The sole ground of refusal of CENVAT credit to the appellant is that it had availed CENVAT credit accumulated against payment for services availed in foreign land through "Reverse Charge Mechanism" in respect of warehousing of goods before sale, at the door step to the customer, which service were considered to have been post manufacturing inputs service and not eligible for CENVAT credit. Further, the Adjudicating Authority held it as service beyond the place of removal while the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per CBEC Circular No. 1996/3/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015, such place of removal can in no case be beyond the port/ICD/CFS where shipping bill is filed by the merchant of exporter since beyond that point the manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ured by it as the goods cannot be treated as legal entity for which the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous furthermore, clarifactory circular cannot have overwriting effect against statutory provision made by the legislature which by itself defines a warehouse as a place of removal. 6. Contradictory decisions are placed by both the parties but on close scrutiny the judgment of Tribunal at Bangalore in Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case as referred above, which has on placed its reliance on the full Bench decisions in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it can very well be said that the dispute was concerning goods cleared from the factory or goods shipment from the port, if to be considered as pla....