TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods from the place of removal. In this case, the benefit of the samples and documents sent accrues to the Appellant. In respect of Credit taken on invoices in the name of M/s J.S. Enterprises it is held that there is lack of clarity as to the amount of credit involved. Since there is no dispute of the facts that the goods were received in the factory and used inside the factory and duty thereon was paid, there is no reason to deny this credit to the Appellant - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/1637 of 2009-SM - - - Dated:- 15-4-2011 - Mr. Mathew John, J. Appearance: Appeared for Appellant : Shri P.M. Panwar, Consultant Appeared for Respondent : Shri Anil Khanna, SDR Per Mathew John: The Appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Authority did not result in relief. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The contention of the Appellant is that the department is trying to change classification of the service from that of courier agents to that of goods transport agencies and thereafter arguing that credit cannot be taken on tax paid on goods transport services utilised for removal of the goods from the place of removal. The Counsel relies on the case law of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. reported in 2005 (186) ELT 422 (Tri.-Del.) and argues that classification cannot be changed at the recipient's end. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. HEG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Education Cess and not Rs.18,044/-. This matter was pointed out by him in his reply to the Show Cause Notice. However, the Adjudicating Authority has not dealt with the discrepancy pointed out and confirmed the demand against him for the amount of Rs.18,044/-. 6. Regarding the merits of this claim, his submission is that M/s J.S. Enterprises is a distributor of equipments manufactured by M/s Statfield Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The invoice clearly shows that equipment was for delivery at the Appellant's factory because the consignee#s name is shown as 'M/s Mark Exhaust System Ltd., village Begumpur Khatola, NH-8, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon'. It is submitted that the equipment has been received in the Appellant#s factory and it has been use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval. According to him, any service used for removal of goods beyond the place of removal is not an input service and the impugned service falls in that category and for that reason credit is to be denied. In the matter of credit taken on capital goods, the ld. DR submits that circular quoted by the board are relating to the period prior to the year 2000 is not applicable. 8. Considered arguments on both sides. 9. The definition of input service, in force at the relevant time, reproduced below :- 'Input service' to mean, any service : (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal itself in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd. Therefore, the appeal in respect of credit availed relating to courier services is to be decided in favour of the Appellant. 12. In the matter of credit taken on invoices in the name of M/s J.S. Enterprises there is lack of clarity as to the amount of credit involved. This is a matter which was specifically raised by the assessee in the reply to the Show Cause Notice and it has not been rebutted in the Order-in-Original. So the submission of the Appellant is taken as correct, in the matter of invoice number and date and duty involved. Since there is no dispute of the facts that the goods were received in the factory and used inside the factory and duty thereon was paid, I find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|