Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
M B Foods Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ... on 28 April, 2023 cites

Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Commissioner, Cgst-Udaipur on 28 September, 2020

8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the principal M/s. PPL is giving their raw material to the appellant as job worker to manufacture biscuits/finished goods out of the said raw material. The job worker/appellant admittedly has to sent back the manufactured final product/biscuits to the Principal M/s. PPL for the onwards sale. This particular admitted fact is sufficient for me to hold that it is sub clause (3) of the aforesaid definition which shall be applicable to the given set of circumstances. Accordingly, the place of removal will be the place from where the manufactured biscuits have actually been sold which apparently and admittedly is the various depot of M/s. PPL. Hence, the transportation of manufactured biscuits from job work's/appellant's premises to the depots of M/s. PPL is the service availed up to the place of removal. Resultantly, to my opinion, is an eligible input service. The issue is otherwise no more res intregra. This Bench itself in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) has held as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - D Gupta - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S. Ultratech Cements Ltd on 8 October, 2012

10. In the given circumstances, it is held that the issue has clearly been settled. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is observed to have ignored the judicial protocol. Though M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. (supra) decision has been relied upon but the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to apply the gist of the said decision to the facts of the present case. Thus, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred while arriving at the conclusion that the impugned services in the given set of circumstances are the services beyond the place of removal. Resultantly, the order under challenge is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, appeal stands allowed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 255 - Full Document

M/S. Escorts Jcb Limited, Commissioner ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 24 October, 2002

Apex Court, in this case has upheld the principle laid down in M/s. Escorts JCB (supra) to the extent that 'place of removal' is required to be determined with reference to point of sale' with the condition that place of removal (premises) is to be referred with reference to the 9 Excise Appeal No. 51163 of 2022 [SM] premises of the manufacturer. The observation of Hon'ble Count in para 16 in this regard is significant as reproduced below :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 144 - B Kumar - Full Document

Genau Extrusions Ltd vs Commisioner Of Gst&Amp;Ce(Salem) on 4 July, 2019

From these documents it is very much clear that the freight charges have been borne by the appellant and has been included in the assessable value. In such circumstances, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd., reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T.221 (S.C.), the place of removal will be depot or the buyer's premises. Then the credit on outward transportation upto the place of removal will be eligible. Further, in the case of M/s. Genau Extrusions Ltd., Vs CGST & CE, Salem vide Final Order No.40900/2019, dated 04.07.2019 the Tribunal has analyzed the said issue and held that credit on service tax paid on freight charges for outward transportation of goods upto the place of removal would be eligible when freight charges are included in the assessable value."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next