TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that stand of both the appellant and the respondent department is that the credit of input service of transportation of goods upto the place of removal is admissible to which I also concur with. The point of dispute in the instant case is 'What is place of removal in the facts and circumstances of the case'. The appellant has claimed it to be buyer's premises in the instant case whereas for the department it was appellant's factory premises. I find that the appellant in their appeal has quoted and relied on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III Vs. Emco Ltd. [2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC) and CCE Vs. M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court extended the bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t freight charges from factory to buyer door step was borne by the seller, only invoice value was considered and no other amount had been charged from the buyer. I observe that it has never been the case of the department that the party recovered freight extra from their buyer. The certificate thus fails to help the appellant in their cause. I further find myself in full agreement with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Ultratech Cement cited supra and relied upon by the adjudicating authority. I therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned order in original." 2.1 Facts of the case are that during scrutiny of the returns for the year 2015-16, it appeared to revenue that appellant was availing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944" 2.4 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. 2.5 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice, Counsel for the appellant and through E-mail requested for adjournment. 3.2 As the matter has been adjourned three times in the past, I am not in position to allow any further adjournment in the matter. I have heard the learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extended period of limitation in cases where an alternate interpretation was taken by the assessee before the date of the Supreme Court judgment as the issue is in the nature of interpretation of law. 4.3 The issue to determine is the admissibility of Cenvat credit in respect of outward transportation whether the supply of goods on FOR basis or at the factory gate. If Board has clarified through the circular on FOR basis the credit should have been admissible in the present case, I find from the purchase order reproduced bellow that the supply of total cost basis at the premises of the appellant and in case of any defect entire sale was to be rejected. The copy of the purchase order which is also referred in the impugned order is reprod....