9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the manufacturing activities would cease as soon as the goods were transported to the RDCs / Corporate Office after manufacturing, but however, there is no supporting evidence placed on this to establish that it is at these RDCs / Corporate Office that the clearance of goods in the form of sale took place. Rather, there is nothing placed on record to indicate the basis for such a conclusion. Matter remanded back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, who shall examine the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 40255 of 2021 with Excise Appeal No. 40271-40281/2021 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 42472-42483 / 2021 - Dated:- 17-12-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.)]. 4. The appellant, thereafter, approached the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Hon ble High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (CMAs) of the appellant by remanding the case back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on this specific issue. 5. As a consequence of the directions of the Hon ble High Court, the impugned orders have been passed, which has resulted in the same result of denial of CENVAT Credit and hence, the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 6. Heard Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee itself was considered as the place of removal from where the goods were sold. In support, he relied on the following decisions: (i) C.C.E., Raipur v. M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (52) S.T.R. 350 (Tri. Del.)] [affirmed in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J76 (Chattisgarh)]; (ii) M/s. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-I [2008 (10) S.T.R. 382 (Tri. Mumbai)] [affirmed in 2012 (28) S.T.R. J19 (Bom.)]; (iii) M/s. Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. S.T., Noida [2016 (6) TMI 468 CESTAT, Allahabad]; (iv) The Commissioner, G.S.T. v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 1206 Gujarat High Court]; (v) M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2019 (2) TMI 1487 CESTAT, Ahmedabad]; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng observed: 22. Firstly, the modus operandi of the assessee requires to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority i.e establishment of RDCs and the WSDCs. The assessee s specific case is that the point of sale in their case is the RDCs. However, this issue has not been examined by the Adjudicating Authority in the manner it was required to be examined. We say so because the Adjudicating Authority is the First Authority, who will record the findings of fact. Therefore, before the legal position is applied, a thorough exposition of the facts needs to be done. Then, law is to be applied to the facts of the case and not vice versa . and has thereafter given a specific direction in the following words: 23. . . . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porting evidence placed on this to establish that it is at these RDCs / Corporate Office that the clearance of goods in the form of sale took place. Rather, there is nothing placed on record to indicate the basis for such a conclusion. 13. In view of the above, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, who shall examine the issue afresh in the light of the directions of the Hon ble High Court, keeping also in mind my observations in the above paragraphs, and then pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. All the contentions are left open. It goes without saying that the Adjudicating Authority shall afford reasonable opportunities of being heard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
