9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- The issue arising out of the present appeals is no more open of any debate, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein the law is well settled that service tax paid on GTA service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer’s premises is not admissible for Cenvat benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 26.02.2016, holding that the phrase place of removal defined under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be read with the provisions of Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for ascertaining the true meaning and scope. Accordingly, it was held that since the goods were delivered at the buyer s premises, such place should be considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put service was included in the assessable value of the final product, on which excise duty liability was discharged by the assessee. Thus, he submitted that credit of service tax paid on such disputed service should be available. In this context, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal, in the case of CCE Vs. Jamuna Auto Industries Ltd.-2013 (31) STR 587 (T) and Palco Metals Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 481-CESTAT-MUM. Thus, he contended that the assessee should not be eligible for the Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on the disputed taxable service for transportation of goods for delivery at the buyer s premises. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the issue arising out of the present appeals is no more open of any debate, in view of the judgment of Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
