TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified. I am of the considered view that if Cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid towards GTA and said GTA used for export of goods, the place of removal stands extended up to the port of export and therefore transportation from factory to port of export is clearly covered by the term ‘up to the place of removal’ and if it is so, appellant is entitle for Cenvat credit. Cenvat Credit on invisible loss - Held that:- invisible loss unless and until it is proved that the goods were diverted so far it is invisible loss, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Invisible loss is process loss on which Cenvat credit is admissible in terms of para 3.7 of Chapter 5 of Supplementary instruction of Central Excise manual The Cenvat credit admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Act, 1944 upholding the Order-in-Original dated 31/4/2008. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit in respect of outward transportation. During the audit of the appellants record by the EA 2000 audit, it was pointed out that the credit on outward transportation is not admissible and accordingly appellant debited Cenvat credit for an amount ₹ 2,64,967/-. Subsequently appellant in the month of March 2007 re-credited the same amount in their RG 23 Part-II account with remark that audit query is not acceptable to the assessee. Thereafter CERA has conducted the audit in the month of January 2008 and audit para dated 23/3/2008 was issued wherein it was contended that there is no provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons cited supra. I imposed penalty of ₹ 2,96,507/- upon the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the reason cited supra. Aggrieved by the above impugned order dated 21/12/2009, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri S.K. Babaladi, Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that show cause notice was issued only on the ground that the appellant has taken suo moto credit and there was no dispute in regard to admissibility of the credit of the total amount. As regard the suo moto credit, he submits that it is not case of refund of excise duty paid in excess; therefore refund under Section 11B is not required to be filed. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against suo moto credit taken by the appellant, genesis of the whole case was audit had raised objection and the admissibility of the Cenvat credit in respect of GTA as well as invisible loss occurred at the end of the job worker during job work of appellant goods therefore it cannot be said that Ld. Commissioner has erred in giving findings on the issue of admissibility of the Cenvat credit in respect of GTA Service. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. In the present case, issue to be decided by me are (i) Whether appellant is entitle for suo moto re-credit of Cenvat credit which was reversed by them, (ii) Whether Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of GTA for use for exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss is process loss on which Cenvat credit is admissible in terms of para 3.7 of Chapter 5 of Supplementary instruction of Central Excise manual which is reproduced below: 3.7 CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or bye product. Similarly, CENV AT is not to be denied if the inputs are used in any intermediate of the final product even if such intermediate is exempt from payment of duty. The basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, and whether directly or indirectly. The Cenvat credit admissible in respect of amount of input contained in waste, refused or by product. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
