TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has to verify the actual destination i.e., he shall verify the actual destination and if it is not again a customer s place, then allow the credit as per law - the issue is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal is partly remanded and partly dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 40135 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41178/2019 - Dated:- 25-10-2019 - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. J. Shankaraman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Vee Fan Belts and Oil Seals. Show Cause Notice No. 08/2016-C.E. dated 20.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office, Madurai, and reiterated its grounds. The appellant also contended that the Courier Service was actually used for transporting the finished goods, but however, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12.10.2018 rejected the appeal by holding inter alia that the appellant had changed its stand by claiming that the Courier Service was actually used for transporting the finished goods as against its earlier stand that the Courier Service was used in relation of (sic) export goods. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied on the decisions in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. M/s. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In reply, Ld. Advocate relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Genau Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise, Salem in Final Order No. 40924 of 2019 dated 12.07.2019 to contend that place of removal' could only be the buyer s premises. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and the only issue to be decided is whether the Courier Service used by the appellant for goods transportation up to the customer s place is an allowable Input Service Tax Credit? In this regard, I have also gone through the documents placed on record and also the order of this Bench in the case of M/s. Genau Extrusions Ltd. (supra). 8.1 The ess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra) will apply and the place of removal is the buyer s premises. In such circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2019 (2) T.M.I. 1487 (supra) squarely applies. As rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX (supra) has observed that credit on Outward Transportation of Goods will not be eligible beyond the place of removal. In the present case, the place of removal being the buyer s premises, the appellant is eligible for credit. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Harita Fehrer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Cement Ltd. (supra), to which the appellant is not entitled to any CENVAT Credit. 10. With regard to the other destinations as given in the table at page 19 of the Appeal Memorandum, the narration of destination is only Manufacturer and Depot , which appears to be vague. Hence, I am of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has to verify the actual destination i.e., he shall verify the actual destination and if it is not again a customer s place, then allow the credit as per law. In view of the above, this issue is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority. 11. In the light of the above, the appeal is partly remanded and partly dismissed on the above terms. (Order pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
