TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not contested on merit. We find no merit in the contest on time bar as recorded above. They are eligible for credit of remaining amount with reference to clearances to depot and consignment agents. The penalty amount also accordingly reduced equal to credit taken on clearance to customers, as stated above. In these terms, the appeal is partly allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 56581 of 2013 - Final Order No. 54600/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G. Natarajan, Kartik Jindal and Joseph K. Antony, Advocates for the appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The present appeal is again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. An amount of ₹ 68,61,054/- is credit attributable for such transportation services. The appellants did not contest the denial of credit of ₹ 6,03,113/- in respect of clearances to SEZ units. The said amount has been paid and appropriated. Similarly, with reference to a credit of ₹ 24,34,593/- it is submitted that the freight advance paid to the transporters on behalf of the customers are shown in the excise invoice. Hence, the appellant is not disputing the disallowance of such credits on merits. 3. The demand is also contested on time bar. It is pleaded that the credit was availed by the appellant on the basis of bonafide belief of their entitlement. Such belief is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in ABB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he factory gate and, hence, the place of removal cannot be factory gate. We note that in order to support their contention regarding clearances to depots as well as consignment agents they have produced a certificate dated 04/3/2013 from a Chartered Accountant indicating yearwise split up details of clearances to depots, consignment agents, SEZ units, buyer s premises and ex-works, From the statement submitted by the appellants it is clear an amount of ₹ 64,61,697/- and ₹ 3,99,357/- are attributable to the service tax on outward transportation to depots and consignment agents respectively. In such situation, it is clear that the place of removal being depot and consignment agents premises. The service tax on freight paid up to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to business. We are unable to accept such proposition. Admittedly, freight advance has been paid to the transporters on behalf of the customers and are shown in the excise invoice. However, the same is not considered for the purpose of payment of excise duty by the appellant which clearly shows that they are aware of the manner of treatment of the freight charges for excise duty purposes. In such situation, it is not open to them to argue that for the purpose of credit of service tax paid on such freight they had a different bonafide belief. When the freight is not part of value for excise purpose and the same is paid on behalf of the customer, we are not able to understand how such expenditure can be treated as activity relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
