9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CERA audit in the factory of appellant, it was observed that appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 6,06,329/- of Service Tax on outward transportation incurred for transport of final of product up to the customer's premises during the above referred period and the same was further utilised for payment of Central Excise duty on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared for home consumption. It was by the respondent department that such availment of credit was not covered within the definition of input service as given in Rule 2(l) of the CC Rules, 2004 for which appellant was put to show cause, matter was adjudicated, upon duty demand along-with equivalent penalty and interest were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and reaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t judgement pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd reported in 2018 (11) G.S.T.L.3 (S.C.), as has been contented by Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. C.S. Biradar. On the contrary Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent department supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited a case law reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 360 (SC) in the case of Commissioner Customs and Central Excise v. ISPAT Industries Ltd to argue that cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be excluded from the assessable value as per rule (5) of Central Excise Rules 2002 against which no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed that the transportation of goods from the point of manufacturer up to the place of removal (para 4) had occurred which went to the knowledge of respondent department during the course of CERA Audit conducted on the record of the assesse (para-2 of show cause-cum-demand Notice dated. 24-3-2010). Therefore, such rejection of appeal on narrow technical consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsupported by the principle of fair justice and good conscience. Hence the order.
ORDER
7. The appeal is allowed and the order No. PKS/69/BEL/2011-12 dated 07-07-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III is hereby set aside.
(Order pronounced in the court on 11-11-2019) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
