9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty. The dispute in this case is as to whether during the period from February, 2005 to May, 2007 they were eligible for cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods from the factory to the customer s premises. According to the respondent, their place of removal is buyer s place, as their sales are on FOR destination basis and hence they were eligible for the cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the revenue. 3. Though notice for hearing of this matter has been sent to the respondent, today when the matter was called none representing the respondent. We find that on earlier occasions for hearings dated 17.2.2011, 26.07.2011 and 29.12.2011 notices of hearing were sent to the respondent at the address SCO No. 18-19, Ist Floor, Sector-8-C, chandigarh through registered A.D. post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isable goods are stored or the depot / premises of consignment agent of the respondent from where goods are sold. Ld. AR submits that the place of delivery to the customer can not be the place of removal. It is pleaded that even if the customer s premises is treated as the place of removal, there is no finding by CCE(Appeals) that the sales were on FOR destination basis. It is submitted that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR. Accordingly, we hold that impugned order is not sustainable in law.
6. In view of the above, appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back for denovo adjudication with reference to the facts of the case after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
