9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2008, nor is the same covered after 1st April, 2008. If the definition provided in Section 2(l)(ii) is read a whole, if would appear that outward transportation charges or taxes paid in regard thereto is claimable only with regard to those transports which were made from one place of removal to another place of removal. Therefore, it is held that the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid by the appellant on GTA service received in respect outward transportation of finished goods beyond the place of removal is not admissible to them. The lower authorities have thus correctly disallowed the credit of ₹ 5,02,949/- along with appropriate interest. On the aspect of imposition of penalties on the appellant on the second issue, I set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice, which was its input service and not its output service . Further, the Revenue also objected to taking of CENVAT Credit of service tax of Rs.5,02,949/- paid by the appellant on outward transportation of finished goods beyond the place of removal. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.6,01,055/- along with interest against the appellant, disallowed CENVAT Credit of Rs.5,02,949/- along with interest, and imposed penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order of the adjudicating authority under the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 3. The matter was fixed for hearing on 16.05.2014. None appeared on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce received in respect of inward transportation of inputs for the period from October 2005 to September 2006. This issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by this bench vide order No.M/10524/WZB/AHD/2013, dt. 12.02.2013 in Appeal No.ST/14/2010. Therefore, the demand of service tax of Rs.6,01,055/- on this count is not sustainable against appellant and the same is set aside. As regards the second issue whether the appellant could take CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods beyond the place of removal, I find that this issue is not covered by the case laws cited by the appellant as contended by them. The appellant has placed nothing on record to show that (i) sale of goods had taken place at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
