2018 (5) TMI 1514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it Rules, 2004. 2. It is the case of the Revenue that during the course of verification, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of some of the services which did not relate to nor had any nexus with, the business of manufacturing of excisable goods by the appellant and therefore, had failed to satisfy the definition of input service as per Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004. Accordingly, a SCN dated 25.05.2016 was issued calling upon the appellant-assessee as to why:- i) an amount of ARs. 3,06,155/- being the service tax credit taken on the above mentioned services which are ineligible input services as detailed above should not be recovered under Rule 14 of CCR,2004, read with Section 11A (1) of CEA, 1944; ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he manufacture of goods was also not disputed, the credit on the same would not be denied as per CCR, 2004. It is the assessee's case that the Revenue had not brought any concrete grounds or evidences to prove that the said activities were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and that the impugned order had not discharged its onus as to ineligibility of credit regarding the service of which Cenvat credit was denied. Thus, according to the ld. Counsel for the appellant the courier service on outward transportation of goods utilized by the manufacturer for transportation of goods are certainly covered under Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004 and that when the goods were being dispatched through courier, the ownership of the go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that what was disputed through courier are the goods. This is quite clear from the appellant's grounds of appeal No.8, 10, 14 & 18. Thus there is no clarity as to whether what was sent through courier were only samplers or the manufactured goods under the guise of samples; and in any case, if the dispatch was of the goods then, it will have a different consequence. Once this factual aspect becomes clear, then the law as laid down by the Courts can be applied. I therefore deem it proper to remit this issue back to the file of the adjudicating authority with a further direction to the appellant to clarify its stand ie., what was sent was courier were samples or manufactured goods and then it is for the adjudicating authority to give a finding....