9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the appellant has availed the services of erection and installation of machinery is part of the business. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for input service credit. Whether the appellant is entitled to take the benefit of exemption Notification 22/03 in the absence of re-warehousing certificate - Held that:- admittedly, the appellant cleared the goods under CT-3 certificates and copy of the same was produced by him before the department at the time of clearance between 2007-08. Within 90 days, the appellant was required to file re-warehousing certificate which they failed to do so but no steps has been taken by the revenue to verify whether the re-warehousing certificate has been obtained or not to deny the benefit of the Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese charges are not included in the assessable value, therefore, on these charges the appellant is not entitled for input service credit. The second issue is that the appellant cleared certain goods to 100%EOU on production of CT-3 certificate but could not produce the re-warehousing certificate within 90 days, therefore, exemption under Notification 22/03 was denied. 3. The clearance took place in 2007-08 and audit was conducted in the premises of the appellant in 2010. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued on 02.03.2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands along with interest and penalty. The order was appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demands. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lful misstatement. In these circumstances, the extended period is not invocable. He further submits that on merits also they are entitled for the benefit of Notification 22/03 in the light of the decision in Motor Ind. Company Ltd. 1998 (98) ELT 504 and Skyron Overseas 2010 (252) ELT 293 (Tri-Ahmd). In these circumstances, he prayed that impugned order is required to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the counsel and submits that the erection and installation service has taken place beyond the place of removal of the goods and appellant are not entitled to take Cenvat credit of the installation charges paid by them. He also relied on the decision of Kilburn Engg. 2006 (193) ELT 375 (Tri-Mum). For non-pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... installation was arranged by the customer's contractor. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of input service credit. 9. Another issue is whether the appellant is entitled to take the benefit of exemption Notification 22/03 in the absence of re-warehousing certificate. In this case, admittedly, the appellant cleared the goods under CT-3 certificates and copy of the same was produced by him before the department at the time of clearance between 2007-08. Within 90 days, the appellant was required to file re-warehousing certificate which they failed to do so but no steps has been taken by the revenue to verify whether the re-warehousing certificate has been obtained or not to deny the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
