TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hary: The present appeal filed by the department is against Order-in-Appeal No. YG(4)4/M-I/2008 dated 08.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai-I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Metro Shoes P. Ltd., holding Central Excise registration are manufacturers and traders of footwear and also ladies purses and bags. The assessee cleared its manufactured footwear on payment of excise duty. The assessee also trades in branded footwear of other companies like Adidas, Reebok, Liberty, etc. They also receive manufactured footwear form various karigars or artisans in loose condition and the affix labels and stikers containing the information regarding colours, size, style, MRP and their brand name on both footwear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on duty paid on inputs and input service utilised in relation to manufactured of dutiable goods. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred inconformity with this principle because in the order full credit of taxes paid on services used partially for manufacture of goods and partially for traded goods is allowed. Further, the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence either to the department or to the Commissioner (Appeals) in order to segregate the services availed by them in manufacture and/or traded goods, since the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit as envisaged under Rule 9(6) lies upon the manufacturer of provider of output service taking such credit. As the appropriate records are not maintained by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Mumbai in Final order no. A/307/08/C-II/EB dated 08/01/2008 [2008 (10) STR 382] had allowed credit on input service used in manufacture, whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final dutiable products and for clearance of products from the place of removal. It was also held that in appellant's case, place of removal is their shop/showroom from where the goods are sold. So far input service is used for trading activity, the will not be eligible. 6. Heard both the parties. 7. I observe the issue herein is squarely covered by earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case 2008 (10) STR 382 dated 08.01.2008, relating to the same issue. I further find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
