9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractor parts and are exporting the same. During the period April, 2006 to July, 2008 and from December, 2008 to October, 2009, the appellants availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 19,16,643/- and Rs. 5,96,971/- respectively against the service tax paid on outward service i.e. CHA Agency, DEPB Registration, Port Shipping, Customs Clearing Services, inland Haulage Services, Technical Handling Charges, Courier Services and Insurance Charges etc paid in relation to clearances of export consignments. Revenue felt that the cenvat credit was not admissible to them as the services rendered were beyond the place of removal i.e. factory gate. Two show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of wrongly taken cenvat credit by invoking the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Castings Ltd. - 2009 (16) STR 709 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Fine Care Biosystems - 2010 (17) STR 168 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (iv) Stovec Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2014 (33) STR 155 (Tri.-Ahmd) (v) Ashirvad Pipes Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-I - 2012 (31) STR 693 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) CCE vs. Inductotherm India P. Ltd. - 2014 (36) STR 994 (Guj.) (vii) CCE, Raipur vs. Bhilai Engg. Corpn. Ltd. - 2016 (41) STR 744 (Tri. Del.) (viii) Orient Containers Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane - 2012 (28) STR 397 (Tri. Mum.) (ix) Palco metals Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2012 (56) STR 429 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (x) Menon Pistons Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolhapur - 2015 (40) STR 283 (Tri.-Mum.) Ld. Advocate also contended that the extended period and penalty could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) could not have come to a conclusion as to the place of removal. Admittedly, these documents which have been produced before the Tribunal were not before the Commissioner (Appeals). It will, therefore, be in interest of justice that the documents, which the appellants have now produced to substantiate their plea, are submitted before and examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) to record proper findings giving the basis for arriving at the same. 7. The matter is therefore remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants in support of their claim that the export was on the FOB basis and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Since the order-in-appeal is set aside and the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
