9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as warehouse located in Spain and since appellant company registered in India, the Central Excise Act is applicable to it irrespective to the fact that its goods are sold from within the territory of India or outside it. Further obligation to discharge the duty is on the appellant company as a legal entity and not on the goods manufactured by it as the goods cannot be treated as legal entity for which the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous furthermore, clarifactory circular cannot have overwriting effect against statutory provision made by the legislature which by itself defines a warehouse as a place of removal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clearance have been effected. It was put to show-cause, the matter was adjudicated upon, duty demand for the period from May, 2014 to February, 2015 was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Appeal No. E/86474/2018 was preferred. For the subsequent period from March, 2015 to December, 2015 another show-cause was issued, adjudicated upon and demand was confirmed. Against both the Orders-in-Original, appeals were preferred before the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik who confirmed both the Orders-in-Original thought a common order. Appeal No. E/86475/2018 is preferred against the subsequent period referred above. 3. In his memo of appeal during the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 28.09.2017 (iii) M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Nagpur - Order No. A/86725/2018 dated 12.06.2018 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the department, in response to such submissions, has supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and citing decision of the Tribunal-Bangalore reported in 2018 (9) GSTL 203 (Tri.-Bang.) in the case of Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. argued that port of dispatch of loading port is to be considered as place of removal and not the warehouse situated abroad. Also placing reliance on the decision reported in 2014 (310) ELT 526 (Tri.-LB) in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed was not eligible credit. He also discussed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andhra Sugar Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 564 (SC) to support his finding that authority issuing notification is a good guide of cotemporaneous exposition of the law. However, going by the definition place of removal, confirmed as in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act under sub-Clouse C(2) is a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty or is a place from where the goods are also removed. In the instant case, appellant contents that it had taken up the risk of shipment of goods to its warehouse located outside India against any lass or damage and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
