TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable. - E/2017 of 2011 Se/stay/2661 of 2011 - A/465 OF 2012-EX (BR) - Dated:- 17-4-2012 - JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. Jatin Mahajan for the Appellant. Nagesh Pathak for the Respondent. ORDER Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President - This appeal is directed against the order of CCE (Appeals) Allahabad dated 19.07.2011 whereby the appeal against the adjudication order No. ST(95/09) 47/10 dated 06.05.2010 whereby the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad have denied cenvat credit in respect of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,44,299/- to the appellant and confirmed the demand and said amount with appropriate interest and also imposed the penalty of equal amount. 2. Alongwith appeal the appellant file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utward transportation charges were covered within the definition of input services as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority after giving due hearing to the appellant confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,44,299/- with appropriate interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of adjudicating authority and the Appellate Authority. However, vide impugned order confirmed the order-in-original and dismissed the appeal. 6. Ld. Sh. Jatin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant while assailing the impugned order submitted that the appellant is job worker engaged in manufacture of biscuit on behalf of principal manufacturer PBPL. He has drawn our attention to the copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ignoring the terms and condition agreed between the appellant and principal manufacturer PBPL and also the form TR-6 for payment of service tax in respect of outward transportation submitted by the appellant in respect of the period in dispute. Thus, it is argued that the order in original as well as the order-in-appeal are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the matter of CCE ST v. ABB Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 141/12 taxmann.com 57 as also the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Parsons Nutritionals (P.) Ltd. v. CCE . 7. Refuting the argument Sh. Nagesh Pathak ld. AR for the appellant submitted that in the instant case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf. Further perusal of the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between PBPL and the appellant would show that as per the job work contract the appellant were required to process and manufacture biscuit, carry out inspection, packing and delivery to various depot of PBPL located all over the country as directed by PBPL. From the above stipulation in the contract, appellants were under obligation to transport biscuits to various depot of PBPL as such obviously the place of removal was/ were depots where the appellant was required to supply manufactured biscuit as per direction of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellants have transported the goods to the depot/ premises of the principal manufacturer and paid transportation charges incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
