2017 (3) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tes to eligibility of Cenvat Credit on outward transportation availed by the appellant for the period April, 2011 to December, 2011. The Original authority disallowed the same and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,80,499/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest thereon and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, the Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant do not indicate "FOR" destination, that insurance were not borne by the appellant and hence it cannot be said that the goods were not sole ownership of the appellant it reaches buyer's premises and the benefit of Board's Circular cannot be extended to them. She further contends that the invoices in fact indicate "FOR" destination and further, the goods were transported in their own referr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 23.08.2007 and other related subsequent circulars as applicable, and also keeping in mind the ratio of the following case laws:- a. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. ADCE, Bangalore 2015 (40) STR 745 (Kar.) b. CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. 2016 (44) STR 227 (Kar.) c. Ultra tech Cements Vs. CCE. Raipur 2014 (307) ELT 3 (Chattisgarh) d. CCE Rothak Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. 2015 (39 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X