2017 (8) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t/ branches - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Mrs. Sandhya. S. Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against two impugned order dated 27.2.2015 and 18.8.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal of the appellant and demanded CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the transportation charges incurred towards the outward transportation of goods to the branch/depot. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No.E/214 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on transportation charges incurred towards outward transportation of goods to the branch or the depot is not sustainable in law as the same is against the Board Circular as well as the binding judicial precedents. She further submitted that appellant has taken credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods to the depot/branches only and has not taken credit on the outward transportation of goods to their customers. She further submitted that the invoice-c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Board Circular No.97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007 are satisfied. He further submitted that appellants have not produced any document to establish that they have fulfilled the requirement of CBEC Circular dated 23.8.2007. In reply to the AR argument, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that though CBEC Circular No.97/8/07 dated 23.8.2007 is not applicable in the present case but for the sake of argument, even if it is applicable, then also the appellants have fulfilled the conditions of the said Notification and the documents annexed are the invoices and delivery challans which clearly evidences that the goods are stock transfer and not of sale where no VAT/CST is charged and the sales tax number shown in the invoice is of the same c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X