Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (8) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... med as exempt services, the appellants have to reverse the credit availed on the input service used for such trading activity. The appellant has also produced a copy of the reply to the RTI application dated 10.8.2021 wherein department has stated that no appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that no exempt services / trading is rendered by the appellant through their registered depot at the Chennai lube plant which is only a place of removal for various manufacturing units. There are no hesitation to hold that the demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 41786/2013 with Excise Appeal No. 40235/2014, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Chennai lube plant in alleging that the activity carried out in the depot of manufacture is a trading activity. In terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, input service means used in relation to manufacture of the final product and clearance of final products upto the place of removal . Thus, the Chennai lube plant is also a place of removal from where the final sale takes place. In fact, the central excise duty is paid at the respective manufacturing plant as per the price applicable for sale at Chennai lube plant as well as at the final lube depot but received product through Chennai lube plant. That the appellant does not engage any trading activity at the Chennai depot. 3. He adverted to the Order-in-Appeal No. 88/2017 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alysed in the appellant s own case by the Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- 13(ii) I find force in these arguments of the appellant since a deposit of a manufacturer is also a place of removal as recognized by sec. 4(3)(c) of the CEA, 1944. This argument has been lost sight of by the respondent whohas misled himself into concluding that the deposit is involved in trading activities without even going into the actual gamut of operations of such depots. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, the term trading‟ though not defined in the Central Excise Statute, means buying and selling of goods‟. In the case on hand, various lube products of M/s. HPCL manufactured by Chennai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates