9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT OF INDIA]. Demand and interest upheld - penalty set aside - For the remaining demand, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order - appeal disposed off. - E/60871/2017 - FINAL ORDER NO.61969/2018 - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Brahmanda Pani, Vice President Present for the Respondent: Shri H.Singh, AR ORDER PER: DEVENDER SINGH The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of various kinds of pressure cookers and have their factory at Hoshiarpur. A show cause notice was issued to them demanding Cenvat credit of ₹ 5,74,520/- on the ground that the input service credit on outward tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the previous period of April, 2010 to February , 2011, the Cenvat credit on outward transportation of final goods to the place of removal considering depot as their place of removal has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 14.7.2015. 3. Ld.AR for the Revenue submits that in the previous order of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to by the appellant, the ratio of judgment of Hon ble Supreme in the case of Ispat Industries Limited 2015 ( 324) ELT 670 (SC) was not taken into account and the Cenvat credit of transportation service to the dealer premises is not admissible. He further contended that outward transportation to their Thane factory for export from the Mumbai port was also not admissible. He also rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.08.2007. The said circular has been held to be inapplicable for the period after 1.4.2008 by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement (supra). The first appellate authority has also relied upon the said circular dated 23.8.2007 and the order is therefore erroneous in the wake of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement (supra) and in view of the documentary evidence which is submitted before the Tribunal, which needs to be examined by the adjudicating authority. 6. In view of foregoing, the matter needs to be re-examined by the lower authorities keeping in view of the breakdown submitted by the appellant in their letter dted 11.5.2012, the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
