9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 9-4-2019 - MR P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are as under:- I. Appeal No. 42661 of 2017 The appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods and are availing Cenvat credit on inputs, input service and capital goods. The appellants were issued Statement of Demand (SOD) No. 2/2015 dated 23.10.2017, for the period 01.10.2015 to 30.06.2017, disallowing credit availed of ₹ 20,41,762/- along with appropriate interest and penalty under 15(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004, for availing ineligible credit of service tax paid in respect of Outward transportation. On a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, Ld. Advocate, Shri M. Kannan appeared and submitted that the contract between the appellant and the customers was FOR destination and that the transportation charges was not recovered from the customers; and also submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court vide the decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 117 (S.C.) held that the input service tax credit on freight charges upto the buyers premises is not eligible after the amendment brought forth in the definition of nput service with effect from 01.04.2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008, however the department has issued a Circular No. 10/6/65/4/2018-CX., dated 08.06.2018, wherein certain clarifications have been issued with regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) wherein, Ld. FAA has categorically observed that the claim of appellant as to contract of FOR sale to buyers was not supported by any documentary evidence. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the ratio of the decision of this very Bench relied upon by the Ld. Advocate in Final Order dated 25.02.2019 wherein the matters have been remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh in view of the judgments of M/s. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd., M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. -2015 (319) ELT 221 (S.C) and Board s Circular dated 08.06.2018. By following the precedence of this decision, I deem it fit to remand these cases also to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
