TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could not be treated as input services and Cenvat credit could not be allowed. Held that - in the light of the BoardCircular No. 137/3/2006-CX4, dated 2.2.2006, the assessee was eligible to treat goods transport utilized till removal of goods to depots of 'p' as input service and was eligible to Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on services of goods transport agency. - CE/2806 OF 2007 - 1502/2009-SM(BR) - Dated:- 3-12-2009 - M. VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER R.K. Saini for the Appellant. ORDER 1. Appeal No. E/2806/2007 is by the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. IND-I/148/2006, dated 8-8-2007. Cross-objection No. 40/ 2008 is related to this appeal and the same is basically in support of the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 2-2-2006 are reproduced below : "2. In this regard a doubt has arisen as to whether a manufacturer manufacturing and clearing goods on payment of duty at specified rates (for example cement) or on the basis of valuation with reference to retail sale price (for example refrigerators), and selling the goods from a depot, is also eligible to take credit of service tax paid on transportation of goods up to such depot. The doubt appears to be based on reasoning that since such goods are not charged to duty on the basis of valuation under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the definition of the expression 'place of removal' given in that section would not apply in case of such goods. 3. The matter has been examined at the level of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to the effect that the issue of valuation of a product and the issue of availing credit on input services are two different issues. The rational of the Board's instruction is applicable to the facts of the present case in spite of the fact that the goods are manufactured by the job worker. The ownership of the depots, in such situation is not the relevant factor. 7. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the respondents are eligible to treat the Goods Transport Services utilised till removal of the goods to the depots of M/s. Parle Products Ltd. as input services and extending credit is legal and proper. 8. No valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
