TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et aside the demand confirmed on AMC charges on computerised tinting machine and steel racks and also set aside penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (CA) in respect of Order-in-Original No.8/2009 dt. 04/06/2009. The Department has also filed appeal against the setting aside of demand of AMC charges and steel racks. Since the impugned order is common in all the three appeals, they are being disposed by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the assessee, M/s. Hi-Build Coatings (P) Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. paints and varnishes and are filing returns periodically. They are marketing their products through "Consignment Selling Agents" who are duly appointed by an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so imposed penalty Rs. 2000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the learned Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order disposed of both the appeals. Against the impugned order, assessee has filed these two appeals and the Department has also filed an appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same stand passed without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances on record. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that both the authorities have allowed credit of service tax upto 01/04/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen once it is recognised that place of the consignment agent is the place of removal, then even as per the amended definition, the credit is admissible. Learned counsel also referred to the definition of 'place of removal' as contained in Section 4(c)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has failed to note that the amendment effective from 01/04/2008 is basically with regard to availment of service tax paid on outward transportation since as per Rule 2(l) as existing prior to 01/04/2008, the place of removal extended to buyers place. The amendment has no effect so far as the services of C&F agents are concerned. When services of C&F agents are accepted as input services prior to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii. 12. Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2010(17) STR 134 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iv. d. Lance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupathi [2010(17) STR 350 (Tri. Bang.)] v. CCE, Raipur Vs. Bhilai Auxiliary Industries [2000(14) STR 536 (Tri. Del.)] 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order has wrongly set aside the demand confirmed on AMC charges and computerised tinting machine and steel racks for which they have filed the appeal No.E/2734/2011. He further submitted that dropping of penalty under Section 11AC of the CEA is also not sustainable. He also submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) should have imposed equal penalty on the appellant as the appellant has not disclosed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or credit of service tax paid on the commission given to the consignment agents. Further I also note that the finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) that from 01/04/2008, the assessee is not entitled to avail service tax paid on outward transportation, this amendment has no effect so far as the services of C&F agents are concerned and when their services are accepted as input service prior to 01/04/2008, the same services will continue to be input services even after 01/04/2008, Further I do not find any fault in the impugned order the Commissioner(Appeals) has categorically held that the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit on AMC charges on computerised tinting machines and steel racks, as both the services are fall under the definition of....