TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of sale, etc. - matter on remand. CENVAT credit availed on ISD invoices - Held that: - the original authority has denied the credit without any examination of the nature of services and also the various submissions made by the appellant in their defence - the appellant that the original authority has failed to give reasoned findings before denying the credit - matter requires de novo examination. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/50509/2016 - A/57234/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 18-10-2017 - (Dr.) Satisah Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Gopal Agarwal, CA Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty on gases. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Ispat Industries Limited, 2015 (324) ELT 617 SC. 3. On the second issue regarding denial of credit availed based on ISD invoices, the ld. Counsels submitted that the impugned order is very cryptic and did not examine each types of input service and the nature of document before arriving at the conclusion to deny the credits. 4. The ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. On the first issue regarding the excise duty liability on delivery charges, we note that the original authority relied on the special procedure for removal of liquid gases prescribed under Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are all places of removal. What is important to note is that each of these premises is referable only to the manufacturer and not to the buyer of excisable goods. The depot or the premises of a consignment agent of the manufacturer are obviously places which are referable only to the manufacturer. Even the expression any other place of premises refers only to a manufacturer s place or premises because such place or premises is stated to be where excisable goods are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were handed over to the transporter, the respondent had no right to the disposal of the goods nor did it reserve such rights inasmuch as title had already passed to its customer. On facts, there fore, it is clear that Roofit s judgement is wholly distinguishable. Similarly, in Commssioner Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. M/s EMCO Ltd., this Court re-stated its decision in the Roofit Industries case but remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine whether on facts the factory gate of the asessee was the place of removal of excisable goods. This case again is wholly distinguishable on facts on the same lines as the Roofit Industries case. 7. In view of the above ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court, we hold that the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
