9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) has also been imposed. Held that- In the light of the decision of ABB Ltd. & Others v. CCE & Service Tax, Bangalore 2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, such credit is admissible. Therefore the first issue is no longer res integra and accordingly appeal in respect of this portion has to be allowed. For the second issue it held that- as per rule clearly recognizes the fact that the goods are being received back by the manufacturer and what is required to be proved in such cases is whether the goods had suffered duty at the time of removal. From the submissions made by the appellant, I find that for reasons best known to the supplier and the receiver, in this case, the purchaser did not take credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants and heard the learned JDR on behalf of the Revenue. 3. As regards Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation service, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in ABB Ltd. Others v. CCE Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal-LB) = 2009 (92) RLT 665 (CESTAT-LB) has held that such credit is admissible. Therefore the issue is no longer res integra and accordingly appeal in respect of this portion has to be allowed. 4. As regards the second issue, the benefit of Cenvat credit has been disallowed on the ground that in the invoice issued by the purchaser, the basic excise duty component is not available in respect of rejected returned goods. It has also been held that appellants are not eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate to this effect received by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Nagpur is enclosed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-H. So, at the time of returning the goods they have reversed/paid Education Cess of which they had taken cenvat credit but have not paid/reversed any basis duty. In these circumstances, it is undisputed fact that the said duty paying documents, the appellant has taken proportionate cenvat credit. It is a settled law that the triplicate copy of invoice is a valid duty paying document in case of returned goods for availment of cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of the CER, 2002. For this contention, we rely upon the following case laws: * M/s. SHARP PUMPS (P) LTD v. CCE, COIMBATORE, reported in 2006 TIOL - 763 - CESTAT-MAD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on.- The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods. (3) If there is difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner." 6. The rule as reproduced above clearly recognizes the fact that the goods are being received back by the manufacturer and what is required to be proved in such cases is whether the goods had suffered duty at the time of removal. From the submissions made by the appellant, I find that for reasons best kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
