TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T.
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-81
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 31,2015

Time Technoplast Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of C. Ex. And S.T. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. VESUVIOUS INDIA LTD. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL,MEMBER (J) - (1.)INPUT service credit has been denied to the appellant on outward transportation service on the premise that the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on the same as transportation has been done beyond the place of removal during the period October, 2007 to March, 2008. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
The appellant is relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd. [ : 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.)] to say that Cenvat credit is available. Moreover, he submits that goods have been sold for FOR basis and transportation cost is included in the assessable value of the goods. Therefore, Cenvat credit is available. On the other hand, learned AR relies on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CCE, Kolkata v. Vesuvious India Ltd. [ : 2014 (34) S.T.R. 26 (Cal.)]. As there are two contra decisions of two High Courts and both are not having jurisdiction on me while deciding this case, therefore, I am taking my independent view. Further, I find that in this case the transportation cost has been added in the assessable value of the impugned goods and goods have been sold on FOR basis. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit in the light of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 97/8/2007, dated 23 -8 -2007. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Consequently, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.