2014 (8) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions are arising out of a common order and therefore all the applications are taken up together for disposal. 2. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of forgings classifiable under Chapter 73 of the CETA 1985. The adjudicating authority denied CENVAT credit on service tax paid by them as recipient of service of goods transport agency service during the period November 2008 to August 2012 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontended that the applicant produced the relevant documents to establish that the customers place is that place of removal which was not considered by both the authorities below. He submits that the demand for the normal period is about Rs. 5.25 lakhs. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR submits that the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (30) STR 220, on the same facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (supra) held that subsequent to amendment of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 10/2008-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2008, substituting the word "from" in the said phrase to "upto" makes it clear that transportation charges were included in the phrase "clearance from the place of removal" upto the date of the said substitution and it cannot be included i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X