9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transportation of goods from their factory to the customer's premises. According to department, the said credit is not eligible as the place of removal is the factory gate. Show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand, the service tax of Rs. 1,69,816/- along with interest. However, no penalties were imposed. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Ms. S. Sridevi appeared and argued the matter. She adverted to the purchase order in respect of the transactions and submitted that the sale was on F.O.R. basis. The appellant has incurred the freight charges and included the same in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) argued the matter on behalf of the department. He submitted that as per the findings of the authorities below, the place of removal is the factory gate. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mapal India Pvt. Ltd., Vs CC, CE & ST Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North vide Final Order No.20224/2019, dated 27.02.2018 has considered the same issue and held that the credit is not eligible. 3.1 He also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of CGST, Udaipur Vs M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., reported in 2019 (24) G.S.T.L.545 (Raj.) to argue that the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., (supra) to obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises, the decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 - TIOL - 42 - SC - CX, does not have any application. The decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., reported in 2019 (2) TMI 1487 (supra) which was followed by the Bench in the case of M/s. Genau Extrusions Ltd., (supra) would apply. 5.2 The learned Authorised Representative has adverted to the Single Member Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mapal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The decision of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd., (supra) being binding on me respectfully I follow the same. 5.3 The decision relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
