TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant (in the present case) CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,43,382/- which was originally allowed by the Original Authority. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein are manufacturers of fertilizers which they also export. They have taken credit of input services in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and have utilized the credit for payment of duty. This credit was sought to be disallowed on the ground that the input services were not used by the appellants whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the place of removal as required in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority, after following due process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Ispat Industries Limited [2015 (324) ELT 670 (S.C.)] in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the expenses incurred for transport after clearances from manufacture premises cannot be included in collection of assessable value. He therefore argued that the place of removal is the premises of the manufacturer only as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence there is no merit in the argument of the assessee that the services incurred up to the port in case of export should also be included as input services for the sake of CENVAT credit. 5. During the hearing, the Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in appeal No. E/31156/17 passed by this Bench for an earlier period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s examining at the cost of transport of the goods and the transportation from the factory of manufacturer to the buyer's premises is includable for the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 24 as follows: "24. It will thus be seen that, in law, it is clear that for the period from 28.09.1996 up to 01.07.2000, the place of removal has reference only to places from which goods are to be sold by the manufacturer, and has no reference to the place of delivery which may be either the buyer's premises or such other premises as the buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods. As a matter of law therefore, the Commissioner's order and Revenue's argument based on that order that ....