9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,44,299/- to the appellant and confirmed the demand and said amount with appropriate interest and also imposed the penalty of equal amount. 2. Alongwith appeal the appellant filed stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, seeking the waiver of condition of pre-deposit. After hearing arguments on stay application, we were of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of as such with the consent of the parties the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty is dispensed with and appeal was heard. 3. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that M.P. Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. the appellant herein, are engaged in manufacture of biscuits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant while assailing the impugned order submitted that the appellant is job worker engaged in manufacture of biscuit on behalf of principal manufacturer PBPL. He has drawn our attention to the copy of the letter dated 15.03.2005 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Varanasi by PBPL whereby they authorized the appellant company to manufacture biscuits on their behalf. He has also drawn our attention to the copy of the job work agreement between PBPL and the appellant whereby the appellant was supposed to process and manufacture biscuits on behalf of PBPL and also to carry out inspection packing and delivery of manufactured biscuits to various depot of PBPL as per direction of PBPL. Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 as also the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Parsons Nutritionals (P.) Ltd. v. CCE. 7. Refuting the argument Sh. Nagesh Pathak ld. AR for the appellant submitted that in the instant case the place of removal of manufactured biscuits is the factory of the appellant, therefore, outward transportation of biscuits does not fall within the ambit of input service as defined under Section 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Those payment of service tax on transport charges would not entitle the appellant to avail cenvat credit. 8. We have considered the rival contention and perused the record. It is not disputed that the appellant is a job worker manufacturing biscuit on behalf of PBPL and clearing those biscuits on payment of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... biscuit as per direction of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellants have transported the goods to the depot/ premises of the principal manufacturer and paid transportation charges including the service tax. In this regard, the appellant have placed on record photocopies of form TR-6 for payment of service tax in respect of the period in question. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant has paid service tax in respect of the input service i.e. the outward transportation of the biscuits to the place of removal. As such, in view of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules the appellant has rightly availed cenvat credit. 12. Result of the above discussion is that the impugned orders denying cenvat credit to the appellant is not sustainable. Appeal is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
