Page 135 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] USHA MARTIN LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA 221
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 999/06/2015-CX, dated 28-2-2015 ............................................................... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
[Order]. - The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein
Cenvat credit has been denied on the business auxiliary service, banking and
financial services and transportation by road and rail services on the ground that
all the services has been availed by the appellant for export of the goods but be-
yond the place of removal.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer and ex-
porter of the goods, it is admitted fact that the appellant has exported the goods
and availed the above services for export of goods. The Cenvat credit sought to
be denied that most of the services has been availed by the appellant beyond the
place of removal, therefore, they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. In these
set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to deny the Cenvat credit the appel-
lant but the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings against the appel-
lant. On appeal filed by the Revenue, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) affirm the
charges in the show cause notice and disallow the Cenvat credit to the appellant.
Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being
an exporter and availed all these services upto the place of removal i.e. upto the
port from where the goods have been taken outside India, therefore, they are
entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the services in question, in terms of CBEC Cir-
cular No. 999/06/2015-CX, dated 28-2-2015.
4. On the other hand, Ld. AR opposed the contentions of the Ld. Coun-
sel and submits that particularly for transportation of goods by road and train
from ICD to the port of export is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit as these ser-
vices have been availed beyond the place of removal. For the remaining services,
he submits that proportionate cenvat credit on these services are not entitled to
the appellant.
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions, I find that the appel-
lant is being an exporter has availed these services for export of goods, therefore,
broadly on the services availed by the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit
on the services in question.
6. The Ld. AR particularly argued that the services availed beyond the
ICD where LED has been issued to the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to
avail Cenvat credit. In this regard, the case issue to be decided is unless until
goods are reached to the port from where the goods has been taken outside In-
dia, whether the same place is of removal of goods or not?
7. For that I have to see the definition as per Section 2(18) of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 which describes export. As per Section 2(18) of the Act, export
means taking goods out of India to place of outside India which means that in
case of export of goods, if goods are within the territorial jurisdiction of India, the
same cannot be said that the export has taken place. In that circumstances, for
export the goods are required to be taken outside India, the same is the place of
removal, therefore, the argument advanced by Ld. AR is not sustainable in the
eyes of the law. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat
credit of transportation charges also upto the port from where the goods taken
outside India.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  135