9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and confirmed the demand with appropriate interest and also imposed the penalty of equal amount. 2. Along with appeal the appellant filed stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, seeking the waiver of condition of pre-deposit. After hearing arguments on stay application, this Tribunal was there are conflicting views of different benches on the issue, granted stay vide order dated 24.01.2008. 3. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Kohinoor Biscuit Products, the appellant herein, are engaged in manufacture of biscuits on job work basis for Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. (PBPL), Mumbai. The biscuits manufactured by the appellant during the period May, 2005 to March, 2006 were cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. He has drawn our attention to the copy of the letter dated 15-3-2005 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Noida by M/s. PBPL whereby they authorized the appellant company to manufacture biscuits on their behalf. He has also drawn our attention to the copy of the job work agreement between M/s. PBPL and the appellant whereby the appellant was supposed to process and manufacture biscuits on behalf of PBPL and also to carry out inspection packing and delivery of manufactured biscuits to various depot of M/s. PBPL as per direction of M/s. PBPL. Clause 3 of the terms and conditions mutually agreed between the appellant and M/s. PBPL provides that the appellant i.e. contract manufacturing unit woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he argument ld. AR for the revenue submitted that in the instant case the place of removal of manufactured biscuits is the factory of the appellant, therefore, outward transportation of biscuits does not fall within the ambit of input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus payment of Service tax on transport charges would not entitle the appellant to avail Cenvat credit. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It is not disputed that the appellant is a job worker manufacturing biscuit on behalf of PBPL and clearing those biscuits on payment of excise duty on MRP basis. 9. Rule 3(xi)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that a manufacturer or producer of final product shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principal manufacturer and paid transportation charges including the Service tax. In this regard, the appellant have placed on record photocopies of Form TR-6 for payment of Service tax in respect of the period in question. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant has paid Service tax in respect of the input service i.e. the outward transportation of the biscuits to the place of removal. As such, in view of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules the appellant has rightly availed Cenvat credit. 12. Based on the above discussion & findings, I hold that the impugned orders denying Cenvat credit to the appellant is not sustainable. Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order and also order-in-original are set aside. (Pronounced in Open Court)< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
