Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (11) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit is admissible for outward transportation of finished goods only upto the place of removal. That the place of removal for Central Excise law being the factory gate, the appellants are not eligible for credit beyond the factory gate upto the buyer s premises on the service tax paid on outward transportation. Show Cause Notices were issued for the period 8/2007 to 5/2008 and after due process of law, the original authority disallowed the credit, confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 1.2.2011 had allowed the credit. Against this department filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 31.8.2015, the Tribunal rem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... clearances. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals)has wrongly placed reliance on the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Industries Ltd - 2015 (324) ELT 670 S.C. The Ld.Counsel submitted that in their own case vide decision reported in 2016 (43) STR 418 (Tri-Chennai) the Tribunal had held the issue in favour of appellant. The Ld.Counsel relied on the following judgements in which the issue is held in favour of assesse. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs M/s.Aqua Flow, Coimbatore - 2015-TIOL-2531-HC-MAD-CX Commissioner of C.EX.& S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Limited - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.) Commr.Of Cus.&C.EX., Hyderabad-III Vs Grey Gold Cements Ltd - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 809 (A.P.) Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory gate sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the place of removal does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract / agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of....