9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation to the business activity of the appellant and inputs are also used for manufacture of the final product; thus, premium paid for insuring the goods after their importation will be considered as input service. With regard to transit insurance of the finished goods, the appellant submits that the ownership of final product i.e. liquid carbon dioxide was retained by the appellant till the same were transferred to the storage tank of the buyer and that the excise duty liability has been discharged on the value of goods inclusive of the transportation and insurance charges. Thus, the appellant submits that service tax paid on such insurance premium will also be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u & Kashmir Cements Ltd vs CCE Jallandhar 2014 (314) ELT 334 (Tri.Del) (d) Nizam Sugar Factory vs CCE A.P. reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 (S.C.) (e) Palco Metals Ltd. vs CCE Ahmadabad 2012 (280) ELT 299 (Tri.- Ahmadabad) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR for Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that SCN has been rightly issued in the present case by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. DR has relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vishakhapatnam vs Mehta & Co. reported in 2011 (264) ELT 481 (S.C.) and Madras Petro-Chem Ltd. vs CCE Madras reported in 1999 (108) ELT 611 (S.C.). 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11A, some positive act on the part of the party has to be established to allege that there is suppression of fact. The reliance placed by Ld. DR in the case of CCE Vishakhapatnam vs Mehta & Co. (supra) and Madras Petro-Chem Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said decided cases, the appellants had deliberately suppressed the material facts, which the Central Excise Department came to know at a later date and the allegation was substantially proved against the said appellant.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, I allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
