PRECISION ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GST
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 1177 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 21-12-2018
APPEAL No. E\/30418\/2018 – A\/31590\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
\nShri P. Venkata Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
\nShri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
\n1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-SC- AP2-0173-17-18-ST, dated 09.01.2018.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are appellants are manufacturers of Wire Wound Resistors and Potentiometers; were availing the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services as per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; during an audit it was noticed that appellants had availed irregular CENVA<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n llate authority also held the same view. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Cx dt.28.2.2015 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv.Ltd.-2016 (43) STR 209 (Tri.-Mum.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ding over of the goods to the carrier\/transporter for further delivery of the goods to the buyer, with the seller not reserving the right of disposal of the goods, would lead to passing on of the property in goods from the seller to the buyer and it is the factory gate or the warehouse or the depot of the manufacturer which would be the place of removal since it is here that the goods are handed over to the transporter for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. It is in this backdrop that the eligibility to Cenvat Credit on related input services has to be determined. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PRECISION ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GSTCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 1177 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 21-12-2018APPEAL No. E\/30418\/2018 – A\/31590\/2018Central ExciseMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri P. Venkata Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This … Continue reading “PRECISION ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GST”<\/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-15643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15643","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=15643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that identical issue came up before the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Imperial Auto Industries [2017-TIOL-2446-CESTAT-CHD]. The entire judgment of the Tribunal is reproduced.
\n“The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
\n2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles parts. During the course of scrutiny of the records, it was observed that the respondent availed credit on courier\/freight services used for delivery\/transportation of the goods from port of export to foreign buyers premises. Thereafter, the show cause notice issued to deny the credit to the respondent. The adjudication took place and the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods have been sold by the appellant on Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) basis<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the learned AR an submits that the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv. Ltd. is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, the assessee took the credit on business support service, namely, terminal handling charges and documentation charges. In the said case, it is not coming out whether the goods have been delivered to the destination of the buyer or not and delivered the goods upto the premises of the buyers. The ownership remains with the seller or not. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. She further submits that in the case of Ambuja Cements (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court has relied on the CBEC circular No.999\/6\/2015-Cx dt.28.2.2015 wherein it has been stated that if the cost of service has been included by the asses<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. It is clarified in the above circular that if the seller does not reserve its right for delivery of the goods then destination in the case is the port of export is place of removal of the goods. The same is not in the case in hand. In fact, the respondent has sold the goods on Delivered Duty Paid basis which means that the seller bear all the cost and risks involved in bringing the goods to the place of destinatio<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n