TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the goods is sold shall be the “place of removal”. In the instant case though the goods were cleared on payment of duty from the factory of the appellant but not sold from the factory. In case of job work goods the sale of the finished goods took place from the appellant factory and in case of removal of goods to their own other unit the sale took place from that other unit. Therefore in the present case transportation (GTA) service is used up to the place of removal and hence qualified as input service. - GTA in the present case being used up to the place of removal covered under the definition of input service and hence admissible for Cenvat Credit. I therefore set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intermediate goods either to job worker or to the other unit. This intermediate goods, from the job worker, after processing returned back to the appellants factory, thereafter final product is cleared on payment of duty. In case of intermediate goods cleared to their other factory the same is used for manufacture of other final product and the final product is cleared on payment of duty. It is his submission that the clearances to job worker and their own factory is before the place of removal for the reason that when the goods are cleared to the job worker though the excise duty is paid but goods is not sold. After job work it comes back to the appellant factory and thereafter it is use in the further manufacture of the final product and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence the denial of credit is also not correct. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the goods cleared from the appellant factory is on payment of duty either in the case of clearance to the job worker or their own other unit. Once the goods is cleared on payment of duty thereafter it cannot be said that it is not a sale in from the place of removal. Therefore it cannot be said that factory of the appellant is not place of removal. Since the factory gate of the appellant is place of removal in the present case GTA use for removal of goods from the factory either to the job worker or to their own unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the factory but goods is not sold from factory, but sold at any other place after removal of goods from the factory, the said place from where the goods is sold shall be the place of removal . In the instant case though the goods were cleared on payment of duty from the factory of the appellant but not sold from the factory. In case of job work goods the sale of the finished goods took place from the appellant factory and in case of removal of goods to their own other unit the sale took place from that other unit. Therefore in the present case transportation (GTA) service is used up to the place of removal and hence qualified as input service. As per this clear position in law, I am of the view GTA in the present case being used up to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
