Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Ltd Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1122 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/40314 to 40316\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 42032-42034\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial)
\nShri V. Ravindran, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Transformer oil, Petroleum jelly and light liquid paraffin and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on various input services. During the disputed period, they had availed credit of service tax paid on c<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n appellant had sent the products to their foreign buyers as sample and this was done only to obtain purchase orders from the prospective foreign buyers. The free samples sent to the foreign buyers cannot be considered as export of goods or removal of goods from the factory gate to the customer's premises. The courier services availed by the appellant for sending the sample products was in the nature of marketing \/ promotion of products and therefore would fall within the inclusive part of the definition. He prayed that the credit may be allowed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Ltd Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1122 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-7-2018Appeal No. E\/40314 to 40316\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 42032-42034\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC … Continue reading “Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Ltd Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate”<\/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-13841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13841","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=13841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The Ld.AR, Sh.R.Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has sent the finished products to their prospective foreign buyers free of charge. Sinc<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n