2019 (2) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayer to set aside the aforesaid judgment and that order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur (for short 'the Adjudicating Authority') be restored. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the impugned services namely Outward Goods Transportation Service (from factory to customers, from railway siding to godown and from godown to customers) in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit during the period from October, 2011 to March, 2012 are eligible 'input services' within the meaning of 'input service' and whether the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit correctly or not?" The res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat is the place of removal. In pursuance of remand order, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 28.09.2015 again confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 53,66,338/- in respect of (a) GTA Services; (b) Auction Services and (c) Rent-a- Cab Services and also charged interest and penalty thereon. The respondent-assessee, being aggrieved by the said order, again preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which vide impugned judgment dated 10.10.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the demand order dated 28.09.2015. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel for the appellantrevenue has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the words, "clearance of final products from the place of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondentassessee submitted that similar question in respect to previous assessment years has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by this Court. The Revenue preferred SLP against the said decision of this Court. Therefore, hearing of the present matter may be deferred till the final decision of the Supreme Court, as according to learned counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) has not noticed many important aspects, the matter therefore is required to be reconsidered. So far as the question of penalty is concerned, learned counsel argued that since the Tribunal has decided the issue against the Revenue not only i....