Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(13) Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE  2016  TIOL-1712-Cestat-Del.
(14) CCE Vs Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd.  2016-TIOL-2123-CESTAT-Del.
(15) CCE Vs Ultratech Cements Ltd.  2016-TIOL-1828-HC-Kar.
(16) Mahle Engine Components vs CCE., Indore  2017-TIOL-765-CESTAT-DEL It is seen that the issue is no longer res integra. As seen from the decisions relied upon by all the counsels appearing on behalf of appellants, from the totality of evidence placed before me as well as facts on record and also following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, I am of the view that the disallowance of credit is unjustified. Ld. A.R has relied upon the decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra) stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that buyer's premises cannot be considered as a 'place of removal'. The said decision has been rendered on an issue of valuation. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Forace Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & Service Tax, Meerut  2016-TIOL-1712-CESTAT-DEL. has distinguished the Ispat Industries case.