M\/s. Essae Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1514 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 24-5-2018
E\/40019\/2018 – Final Order No. 41554\/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial )
\nShri Vikram Kataria, C.A., for the appellant
\nMs. P. Hemavathi, Commr. ( AR ), for the respondent
\nORDER
\nThe appellant before me is engaged in the manufacture of parts of Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Coffee Maker and Weighing Machine falling under Chapter 84 and as such was availing Cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods for the period May 2015 to March 2016, in accordance with the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
\n2. It is the case of the Revenue that during the course of verification, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of some of the services which did not relate to nor had any nexus with, the business of manufacturing of excisable goods by the a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n efore the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Chennai, and the Commissioner (Appeals) also gave a partial relief vide his OIA dated 28.11.2016. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is now before this Tribunal and the assessee is mainly agitating the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the courier used for sending samples by the appellant to its clients amounted to outward transportation of goods, which was allowed only up to the place of removal (factory gate); and the balance of services pertaining to outward transportation stood rejected. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n & ST, Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. – 2011 (24) STR 542 (Kar.). The Ld. Consultant finally submits inter-alia that the Cenvat credit is available up to the place of removal which has been defined under Section 4 (3) (c) of CEA, 1944; that even the CBEC Board's Circular No. 999\/6\/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 supports his contention; that a similar case has been decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vapi Vs. Parle International Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (278) ELT 625 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and that there is no dispute in the case that the courier service was used for sending samples to the customers for approval and for communicating with their branch office to send documents and other correspondences, etc. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Essae Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai NorthCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1514 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 24-5-2018E\/40019\/2018 – Final Order No. 41554\/2018Central ExciseHon'ble P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Vikram Kataria, C.A., for the appellant Ms. P. Hemavathi, Commr. ( AR ), for the respondent ORDER The … Continue reading “M\/s. Essae Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. During the course of hearing, it was argued that the Cenvat credit on courier used was for sending samples to their clients amounted to outward transportation of goods. Further, hence the receipt of input service was not disputed and the fact that the input service was used in relation to the manufacture of goods was also not disputed, the credit on the sa<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. On behalf of the Revenue, Ld. Commissioner, Ms. P. Hemavathi vehemently contended that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) requires no interference and also drew support from the findings given by the authorities below.
\n6.1 I have considered the rival conten<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n