TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e show cause notices for denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 35,55,567 availed between February 2005 and December 2010 on the ground of ineligibility of tax paid on utilization of 'goods transportation agency service' for outward movement of manufactured goods, is the determination of scope of 'input service' in relation to domestic clearances up to March 2008 and on goods cleared for export for the period thereafter. 2. It is also submitted by the appellant that credit of Rs. 85,851 pertains to 'sales commission' chargeable to tax under 'reverse charge' for April 2008 and not to 'outward transportation' which was the cavil of the appellant-Commissioner in proceedings before the first appellate authority. Furthermore, it was pointed out that cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ispat Industries Ltd [2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC)]. 5. It is evident from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in re ABB Limited, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd [2018 (11) GSTL 3 (SC)], that, for the period prior to April 2008, that coverage of 'outward transportation' within the definition of 'input service' in rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is beyond dispute. It is also evident from the records that the first appellate authority deliberately preferred resort to interpretation afforded by decisions of the Tribunal over the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court. The reversal of the order of the original authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the appeal before the first appellate authority. The decisions relied upon by Learned Authorized Representative, having been rendered in the context of goods cleared for domestic consumption, would not apply to export of goods. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in re Ambuja Cements Ltd and that of the Tribunal in re Rolex Rings P Ltd relied upon the master circular which was called into question by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. However, the Tribunal in Kennametal India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Bangalore [2016 (46) STR 57 (Tri-Bang)] has, by placing reliance on the specific exclusion afforded by circular dated 28th February 2015 of Central Board of Excise & Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e risk related thereto remains with the appellant up to the loading of the goods on the ship at the port of shipment. Further Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inter alia states that the 'place of removal' is any other place from where the excisable goods are to be sold after the clearance from the factory. Thus, the 'place of removal' in case of export of goods is port of shipment. CHA services are utilized by the appellant before the goods were loaded on to the ship and therefore, the same falls within the definition of 'input services'. Therefore, keeping in view the circular of the Board and the judgments cited at bar by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the sa....