9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. - Ex. Misc. Application (ROA) No.77301 of 2018 And Ex. Appeal No.76711 of 2017 - MO/75533/2019 And FO/75409/2019 - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K. CHOUDHARY : The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for restoring of their appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Final Order No. 76621/2018 dt. 13/09/2018. 2. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant submits that the earlier counsel engaged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Authority upheld the Adjudication Order and rejected the assessee s appeal. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the issue is no more res-entigra in view of the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. [2018 (11) G. S. T. L. 3 (S. C.) (ii) Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. S. T., Guntur vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd. [2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 12 (S. C.) 6. In the case of CCE, Belgaum vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. (Supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held thus:- 4. We may make it clear that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of removal (i.e. the place of manufacture) to either the place to their respective depots or transport upto the place of the customers, if from the place of removal the goods were directly delivered at customers place. It is made clear that only first set of transportation from the place of removal was claimed. To put it otherwise, in those cases where the tax paid on transportation on the goods from the place of removal upto the place of depot only that was claimed and if there was any such tax again paid from the place of depot to the place of customers, the Cenvat credit thereof was not claimed and there is no dispute about it. 6. The aforesaid approach of the Full Bench of the CESTAT, as affirmed by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing more needs to be done, except transporting the said final products to the ultimate destination i.e. the customer s/buyer of the said product, apart from attending to certain ancillary services as mentioned above which ensures proper delivery of the finished product upto the customer. Therefore, all such services rendered by the manufacturer are included in the definition of input service . However, as the legislature has chosen to use the word means in this portion of the definition, it has to be construed strictly and in a restrictive manner. After defining the input service used by the manufacturer in a restrictive manner, in the later portion of the definition, the legislature has used the word includes . Therefore, the later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the place of removal upto a certain point. Therefore, tax paid on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is depot or the customer, has to be allowed. 8. Our view gets support from the amendment which has been carried out by the rule making authority w.e.f. 1-4-2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008 whereby the aforesaid expression from the place of removal is substituted by upto the place of removal . Thus from 1-4-2008, with the aforesaid amendment, the Cenvat credit is available only upto the place of removal whereas as per the amended Rule from the place of removal which has to be upto either the place of depot or the plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
