9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling Cenvat credit on outward transportation service as appellant cleared the cement in loose bulk to their packing unit in terms of notification No.4/2006 CE as amended by Notification No.4/2007-CE with effect from 1.3.2007. The Government notified cement under the 3rd Schedule for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein the goods falling under 2523.29, packing, repackaging, labeling, etc. amounted to manufacture. Therefore, the appellant got themselves registered for their packing plant and also availed Cenvat credit on Goods Transport Agency service for outward transportation of loose cement from their factory premises upto the packing plant from where the packed cement was sold in market. During the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they are entitled to cenvat credit on outward transportation of goods as goods were not sold but sent to their packing plant. 5. On the other hand, leaned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 7. On careful consideration of submissions of both the sides, I find that in this case, the goods in question cleared from the factory of the appellants to their packing plant, the appellant remained the owner of the said goods. And it is a fact that the cost of goods transportation agent services has been included in the assessable value of the goods, therefore, in the light of CBEC Circular No.97/8/07 dated 23.8.07, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit as held by Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'place of removal' to be the factory gate in case of payment of excise duty on specified rate then they could so define it in the Act or in the Rules or in any of the circulars. They having failed to do so have clarified their intention that in such a case factory gate cannot be place of removal as a presumption of law. 28. In view of above, the presumption by the Tribunal that the place of removal is factory gate of the manufacturer in case the excise duty is charged on the specified rate, is incorrect." 8. Therefore, I hold that appellant has correctly availed the cenvat credit on outward transportation service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserves no merits, hence set aside. Consequently, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
