9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary: Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/002/APP/20/14-15 dated 13/05/2014, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has allowed input service credit on output transportation services. The period involved in this case is from October, 2007 to June, 2012. 2. Brief facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which have been transported and Cenvat credit is available to the services which have nexus with the manufacturing activity of the final product. Admittedly, these services have been availed after manufacturing of final product. Therefore, same has no nexus with the manufacturing activity. It is further submitted that the place of removal is the factory of the respondent. Therefore, in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra). 4. The ld. Counsel for the respondent relies on the impugned order and submits that the place of removal in this case is the FOR destination of the customer. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat decision in this case of Vesuvious India Ltd. (supra) relied on by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case to say that services have been availed upto the place of removal of the goods. Assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit. 6. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld. 7. Thus, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
