2019 (7) TMI 731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of Goods up to the buyer's premises. The Department was of the view that the place of removal can only be the factory gate and therefore, the Outward Transportation beyond the factory gate is not eligible for credit. 1.3 A Statement of Demand dated 07.03.2018 was issued for the period from April 2016 to June 2017 proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 14.02.2019 upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 2.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the appellant had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reported in 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX had held that the credit on Outward Transportation of Goods up to the buyer's premises is not eligible when the factory gate is the place of removal. 3. Ld. AR Shri. B. Balamurugan, appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to the discussions made in the order passed by the authorities below and argued that the appellants have not produced sufficient evidence to establish that freight charges have been included in the assessable value and that the buyer's premises is the place of removal. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX (supra). 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue ....