Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Bajaj Hindustan

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. MRT-EXCUS-002-APP-22-23/14-15 dated 16/5/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Meerut II ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Meerut II

Vs.

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Appellants

Shri P K Mittal, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 10.6.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51872 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the proceedings against the respondent which were initiated against the respondent for availing the Cenvat credit on goods transport agency service for transportation of goods up to the place of buyers.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of sugar and molasses and they are selling the goods upto to the place of buyers. They are bearing the cost of transportation. They are having ownership of goods till goods reaches upto the place of buyer and also bears the insurance cost of transportation of goods. Revenue is of the view that as per definition of 4(3)(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the place of removal is the factory of appellant and therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on outward transportation service beyond the place of removal, i.e. factory. In these set of facts, show cause notice was issued. Cenvat Credit is sought to be denied which was affirmed by the adjudicating authority. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) he observed that respondent has complied with the condition of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 and allowed the Cenvat credit and dropped the proceedings. Against the said order, Revenue is before me.

3. Learned AR submits that the respondent is not entitled to take Cenvat credit beyond the place of removal, that is factory in the light of decision of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur [ 2012 (1) ECS (3) Tri-Del)]. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to take cenvat credit.

4. Heard the learned AR and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent has not complied with the condition of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07 i.e. cost of transportation has been borne by the respondent. Insurance cost of transportation was also borne by the respondent and respondent was the owner of the goods till goods reached the premises of buyer. As these facts are not in dispute, therefore, I hold that respondent has complied with the condition of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07.

6. In these circumstances, I hold that respondent has correctly availed cenvat credit on outward transportation service. Reliance placed by the Revenue in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur (supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case as in that case the Tribunal has not examined the CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.07. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld.

7. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

1