2017 (1) TMI 1069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent/Assessee ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 11.03.2011 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Clinker liable to Central Excise duty.  They have also availed credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax.  The dispute in the present appeal r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ; In the appeal, the Revenue emphasized that the term "place of removal" needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and relying on the definition under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.  It is contended by Revenue that in the instant case, the goods were transported to sister unit of the respondent for further manufacture and as such, the place of removal wou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation of Cement from the respondents unit to customers' premises on FOR destination basis, the credit was admissible as the sale has taken place when the customer takes delivery of the goods.  The cost of transportation has been included in the assessable value and as such, the impugned order permitted the credit as legally eligible.  We note that during the arguments, Ld. AR referred t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X