2017 (3) TMI 1433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Fanta, Sprite & Limca etc. All the aforesaid goods are dutiable and the appellant does not manufacture any exempted goods in its factory located at Jaipur. The appellant is a part of a multi-locational legal entity having manufacturing units in various States in the Country. The present manufacturing unit of the appellant caters to the market demand of the State of Rajasthan. To meet the market demand, the appellant sourced certain finished goods from their other units on a "stock transfer" basis specially from Ahmedabad or Mumbai. The stock so transferred was put in Jaipur warehouse, where the goods manufactured in the Jaipur units were also stored. 3. As appellant claims credit on various input service pertaining to the storage and dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order may be set aside. To support his argument, he also relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. - 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) and CC, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. - (2007) 8 SCC 89. Lastly, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Agarwal, ld. DR for the department has relied on the impugned order. In addition, he submits that Rule 3 has already been invoked in para 5 of the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, he also submits that there is no provision for making a demand under Rule. The demand is under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and the same has been done in the instant case. The definiti....