TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 86,808/- is allowable which is paid by the sub-contractor. I hold that the said credit of ₹ 86,808/- also allowable. It is also held that the services in respect of clearance of the final product from the place of removal. Under the circumstances, if the premises of the buyers as the appellant had taken both selling of the products as well as the installation which is included in the selling price. So far as the credit taken on the telephone service is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the said telephone connections although justifying that it occupies in the factory premises, in the admitted that during the period under consideration, the appellant is on the occupation of the premises in the case manufacturing activities and they have utilising the telephone credit I also find that the appellant paid most of the bills for the telephone through account pay cheques and the payments are reflected in the bank statements. Under the circumstances, I hold that the Cenvat credit is allowed. As regard denial on the ground of inadmissible documents appellant have not brought any additional records even at the first appellate stage before this tribunal in support of the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRI Mum). Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. As regards the erection, installation and commissioning services, it is urged that in the show-cause notice it was alleged that the services provided by the third party to the customers of the appellant whereas in the adjudication order, the same was traveled beyond the scope of show-cause notice and confirmed the proposed amount holding that the service was given to buyer beyond the place of removal. It is further stated by the learned Counsel, it is evident from the purchase order given by the customers wherein the quotation given by the agent of the appellant for sale of the conductor it was mentioned that installation charges are included. The purchase order was given by the buyers with reference to the quotation dated 08/11/2006 and accordingly, the appellant supplied the product at the quoted price as is evident from the tax invoice dated 16/11/2006 of its buyer M/s.Eco Plywoods (P) Ltd. Further, the appellant relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Koch-Glitsch India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara 2009 (13) STR 636 (Tri-Ahmd) wherein the sub-contractor had taken Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruling in the case of Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur 2013 (288) ELT 316 (Tri-Mumbai) wherein it was held that in the case of assessee availing Cenvat credit in the process of installation of ammonia storage tank facility at JNPT for storage of input/raw-materials meant for manufacturing of final product. This Tribunal held that as the service has been used outside the factory the definition of input service also includes input service used in relation to the storage up to the place of removal. Hence the Cenvat credit on storage upto place of removal will include the storage of final products and not storage of inputs because whenever legislature wanted to give the benefit in respect of inputs it has done so by specifically mentioning as procurement of inputs and inward transportation of the inputs. Accordingly, it was held by this Tribunal that input services used in relation to storage of inputs outside the factory will not be eligible for the credit. The learned Counsel for the appellant assessee states that the said ruling of the Tribunal have been modified by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of 2013 (32) STR 532 holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods at the destination was covered by the definition of input service prior to 01/04/2008 nor is the same covered after 01/04/2008. On reading the definition under Cenvat Credit Rules 2 (l) (ii) it would appear that outward transportation charges of Rs . is claimable only with regards to those transports which were made from one place of removal to another place of removal. The learned DR further points out that the Commissioner has recorded the findings that transport charges recovered separately from the buyers and did not confirm an integral part of the price of the goods and as such the Cenvat credit is not allowable. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that ruling of Hon ble High Court in the case of Vesuvious India Ltd. have been differentiated and deferred in the case of Uttam Glva Steels Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raigad 2015-TIOL-03-CESTAT-MUM, a single member bench of this Tribunal wherein input credit was denied in respect of outward transportation charges for the period 2005-06, on the premises that Cenvat credit on outward transportation is chargeable upto the place of removal. As such, the same to be allowable following the ruling of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
