9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / GTA services has not been examined - This is a very relevant fact to decide whether it should be considered as an input service - The most relevant issue to be decided is what is the place of removal because even after the amendment dated 01-04-2008 services for removal up to the place of removal is included in the definition of input services – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted. - E/00199/2012 - MISC. ORDER No. 42811/2013 - Dated:- 28-11-2013 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, JC(AR) ORDER Per Mathew John: Applicant is a manufacturer of computer. They dispatched a substantial numbers of compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges/GTA charges in the assessable value of goods and excise duty was paid on value inclusive of such charges. Though these facts were placed before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority did not verify these facts and went by the argument that after 01.04.2008, the applicant is not eligible for Cenvat credit for services utilized for clearance of goods from the place of removal. There is no decision by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order as to what is place of removal considering the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel contests that in his case the place of removal is the premises of the customer because the goods are sold at such premises only. He relies on the circular issued by CBEC vide No.97/08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable if the conditions laid down in the Boards circular are satisfied. Against such background, the learned Counsel prays that the appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit. In respect of the other services, where the credit involved is about Rs.30 lakhs, the learned Counsel points out that the denial has been ordered based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs Sundaram Brake Linings reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R.172 (Tri.-Chennai). But he points out that the principle laid down in Sundaram Brake Linings (supra) has been overruled by the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd reported in 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM. In the above circumstances, he prays that the appeal may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. In the case of Courier Services and GTA Services the orders relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative except the case of PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. do not deal with the Circular dated 23.08.2007 issued by CBEC and the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. On a study of the various decisions, we find that there are somewhat conflicting decisions on this issue. The decision which is most near to the facts of the case is Gala Precision Technology Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra. Further, we take note of the fact that the applicants claim that they have paid excise duty on the value inclusive of the value of Courier services/ GTA services has not been examined in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
