TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s - Held that:- Decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court [2002 (10) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] may not be applicable to the facts of this case since in that case, factory gate was admittedly the place of removal and there was no dispute about the place of removal. In the case of Madras Cements Ltd., the decision was rendered prior to the period 01/04/2008 and further it was held that prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is engaged in manufacturing of cement and clinker. The appellant is availing the benefit of CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 in respect of inputs and input services. The appellants were also taking CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them as receiver of services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner in the impugned order for confirming the demand is that the invoice was prepared in the factory and not at the buyers premises and therefore buyers premises cannot be considered as place of removal and the factory has to be considered as the place of removal. Further he has also taken a view that since the goods were handed over to the transporter, it cannot be said that the owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2012(27) STR 470 (Tri. Bang.)]. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We have also gone through the invoices produced before us. We find that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court may not be applicable to the facts of this case since in that case, factory gate was admittedly the place of removal and there was no dispute about the place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
