TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fairly points out that this bench has, of late, considered identical issue and held in favour of the assessee. The reference is to Final Order Nos. 673-675/2012 dated 28.09.2012 in Appeal Nos. E/245, 1621 & 1622/2010 (Commissioner Vs. M/s. Pokarna Ltd. and another). The issue is whether the respondent was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on CHA service availed for export of excisable goods during the relevant period. An identical issue was considered in para 7 of the aforesaid Final Order, which is reproduced below: 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. (i) Whether the respondents were entitled to claim CENVAT credit on GTA service/CHA service availed for export of excisable goods during the relevant period. It has been argued o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry which met with an accident resulting in spillage of 51 pieces of granite slabs meant for export leading it its destruction. As a result of this rejection, the revenue has confirmed the demand of duty by Order-in-Appeal No. 5/06, dated 10-1-06 on the ground that assessee is required to discharge duty on the quantity of polished granite slabs which were destroyed in the accident as their prayer for remission of duty has been rejected by the Commissioner. The appellants contention is that in terms of Rule 21 of C.E. Rules they are entitled to claim remission if the goods were destroyed due to unavoidable accident at any time before removal of the goods. It is the submission of the assessee that the place of removal has been defined under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J. Exports Ltd. v. CEGAT [1992 (60) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] has explained the expression, for home consumption vis-a-vis expression warehousing. He also refers to the ruling rendered by this Bench in the case of Koeleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore [2005 (192) E.L.T. 866 (T-Bang.)] which has clearly held that when the goods are damaged during transportation from factory to the port of export, and due to reasons beyond the control of appellants then, it has to be held that there is no diversion for home consumption and demands were set aside. He points out to another ruling of the Mumbai Bench in the case Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [2007 (207) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) on the same point which is in his favour. He submits that th....