9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? – Held that: - the appellant is only a recipient of services and that there is no sale, but only transfer to its own units. The consent of the appellant recorded and further decision is to be taken by the adjudicating authority - the Original Authority has to frame proper issues, adjudicate by providing an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the Central Excise Act 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order – matter disposed off. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1165 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. C. Saravanan For the Respondents : Mr. A.P. Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of removal, (the expression of which is defined in Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944) and delivered such goods at the port of export shall entitle the appellants to the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on transportation of such goods from any of the above places or such tax refundable under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 wherever the Cenvat credit is not adjustable ? and ii. Whether Cenvat Credit is admissible in respect of service tax paid on transportation of the goods cleared from the places in question ? 4. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material on record, vide final Order No. 40353 to 40379 of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, CESTAT, Chennai has answered the issues and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,33,837/-, has not been considered by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned orders and prayed to sustain the same. 7. We have gone through the material on record, including the order impugned. The Tribunal has decided the case, based on the Board's Circular No.97/8/2007-ST, dated 23.08.2007. One of the grounds urged before us, assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal, is that the appellant is only a recipient of services and that there is no sale, but only transfer to its own units. 8. Going through the material on record, we are of the view that the issue as to whether Cenvat credit on service tax paid on transportation charges fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
