TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the scrutiny of records, it was noticed that the appellant was storing duty paid excisable goods manufactured and cleared from the factory in unregistered godowns adjacent to the customer's plant for onward clearance to the customer's plant as per the stock requirement of the customer on the basis of 'just-in-time' concept. In respect of these godowns, appellant was availing input service credit in respect of the godown rent, unloading, loading, freight, painting and other miscellaneous expenses under the 're-delivery charges' which are essentially post-manufacture and after-sale activity beyond the place of removal and they have no nexus with the manufacturing of service activity performed by them. These services are carried out after of sale of the excisable goods and outside the factory premises. Thus Revenue was of the view that these services received in the unregistered premises does not qualify as input services for and the credit not admissible. Accordingly show cause notice dated 04.10.2016 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:- "(a) the amount of Rs. 12.17,807/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs. Seventeen thousands. Eight Hundred and Seven only) [CEN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter listed during the second week of July 2022, i.e. 18.07.2022, as requested by the counsel. Again, on 18.07.2022 counsel prayed for adjournment vide his letter dated 14.07.2022 and sought the matter to be posted in second week of September 2022. Accordingly the matter was posted for hearing today. Today again counsel has requested for an adjournment stating as follows:- "The above appeal is posted for hearing 13.09.2022. It is submitted, that certain information and instructions are required from the appellant for making submissions before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, it is prayed that the hearing fixed on 13.09.2022 may please be adjourned by 6 weeks and thus render justice." 2.6 In this case appeal has been filed on 18.04.2019 and Vakalatnama had also been filed in the name of the counsel on the same date, which means that the counsel was appointed by the appellant in the matter about three years back. The same counsel had attended the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.01.2019 as per para 5 of the impugned order. After attending the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter, after a lapse of more than three years from the date of fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n para 19 of the order-in-original which is reproduced below:- "19. In view of the statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements an discussed above, the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of input services not received at their premises but at a un-registered godowns, lying adjacent to the customer's plant for onward clearance to the customer's plant, is improper and is in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the CCR, 2004. Therefore, it appeared that the impugned services, under the caption Re delivery charges, does not qualify as Input services and Consequently, it has to be held that the assessee would not be eligible to avail Cenvat credit of impugned input services not received by them and they are liable to reverse the Cenvat credit of services/inputs so taken in terms of the provisions of the CCR. 2004." 3.5 Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is reproduced below:- "RULE 3. CENVAT credit. - (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a [provider of output service] shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of - (i) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, le....