2019 (11) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able to the assessee beyond the place of removal i.e factory gate. 2. The fact in all the appeals are identical, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellant are manufacturing excisable goods and obtaining purchase orders from their buyers wherein the goods are to be delivered at buyers place i.e on FOR basis. The appellants sold goods to buyers and transportation cost were borne by the appellants and the goods were in their position till goods were delivered at the factory gate of the buyer. The Revenue is of the view that as per rule 2 (qa) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 the place of removable is the factory gate or depot or the place where the goods have been sold by the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal), but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) did not follow the order of this Tribunal and passed the contrary order which is against the directions given by this Tribunal, in the case of Rahul Bhandare Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2012 (285) ELT 225 (Tri. - Mumbai) in the paragraph 21 of this order as below:- We Objected the Ld. Jt. CDR for his remarks that the decision in the case of Metro Palace Hotel (Supra) is a wrong decision, as the said order has been accepted by the department, therefore, the Jt. CDR has no liberty to say that the decision is wrong. In the case of Select impex Ltd. v. Union of India - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 146 (Del.), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that this Tribunal is a quasi j....