TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Order-in-Original, whereas in appeal No.E/69/2010 and E/491/2010, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is common, therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by the common order. The details of the three appeals are reproduced herein below: Appeal No. Period Involved Demand Amount Penalty E/69/2010 Oct. 07 Feb. 08 Rs.6,86,820/- Nil E/737/2009 Apr. 06 Sep. 07 Rs.10,03,03/- Rs.10,03,035/- E/491/2010 Mar. 08 Sep. 09 Rs.6,52,601/- Rs.2,000/- 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the appeal No.E/491/2010 is taken. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture and clearance of prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and vide the impugned order dated 4.1.2010 the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit but set aside the penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions and by ignoring the binding judicial precedents on the issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has misconstrued the definition of input service as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace of removal as defined in Section 4(3)(c). In support of his submission, appellant relied upon the following decisions: i. CCE vs. ABB Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) ii. Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (44) STR 618 (Tri.-Chennai) iii. JSW Steel Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (36) SR 801 (Tri.-Mum.) iv. Plus Paper Foodpac Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 529 (Tri.-Mum.) v. CCE vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd.: 2016 (42) STR 81 (Tri.-Ahmd.) vi. Madras Cements Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 645 (KAr.) vii. Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. UOI: 2009 (14) STR 3 (P&H) viii. Radical Instruments vs. CCE: 2016 (46) STR 631 (Tri.-Del.) ix. Pearl Eng. Polymers Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (41) STR 773 (Tri.-Mum.) x. Oriental Containers Ltd. vs. CCE: 2012 (28) STR 39....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This decision therefore, covers the issue in favour of the assessee insofar as the assessee availed Cenvat credit on courier services for its export as well as domestic sales. Insofar as availment of Service Tax credit incurred on courier charges for remittance of Service Tax on the assessee s output services of Maintenance or Repair and Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services, for the reasons alike since the courier and Goods Transport Agency Services are input services for rendition of output services, cenvat credit is equally admissible." 7.1 Similarly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd.: 2009 (14) STR 3 (P&H) after relying upon the Circula....