9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the denial in the impugned Order is therefore unsustainable - Revenue having accepted and allowed the availment of CENVAT Credit, cannot change its stand for any reasons and for different period - credit allowed. Clearing and forwarding services - Held that:- The credit is allowable only up to the place of removal i.e., the factory gate of the appellant, in terms of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. & S.T. Vs. M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the denial, if any, beyond the factory gate is held to be in order - matter remanded for this purpose of verification. Tangible Goods Services - duty paying document - it is the case of the Revenue that mandatory Service Tax Registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred an appeal unsuccessfully before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 287/2017 (CXA-II) dated 31.05.2017 rejected the claim of the appellant and therefore, the assessee has filed this appeal before this forum. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, Shri. R. Parthasarathy, Ld. Consultant appeared for the assessee-appellant and Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AC (AR) appeared for the Revenue. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the record and have also gone through the decisions referred to during the course of hearing. 3. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the issue involved has already been addressed to and laid to rest by a catena of decisions including the Order of this Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the above three services is unsustainable. 7. With regard to the clearing and forwarding services, however, the credit is allowable only up to the place of removal i.e., the factory gate of the appellant, in terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. & S.T. Vs. M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. - 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and therefore the denial, if any, beyond the factory gate is held to be in order. 8.1 With regard to the Tangible Goods Services, it is the case of the Revenue that mandatory Service Tax Registration Number has not been mentioned in the invoice and therefore, that invoice was not a valid document under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 as again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside." 8.3 I also note that the above decision has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai Vs. CESTAT, Chennai & Anor. in C.M.A. No. 860/2017 dated 10.04.2017. Going therefore by the above ratio decidendi, I hold that the denial of CENVAT Credit on this service is also not in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
