VARDHMAN SPECIAL STEELS Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are in appeal against the Order -in -Appeal in which cenvat credit of Rs. 9,41,035/ - was disallowed as held by the adjudicating authority.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellants paid service tax on GTA service during the period February, 2005 to December, 2005 and availed cenvat credit which was denied on the ground that the appellants did not show any documents evidencing that clearances were made on FOR basis and therefore the factory gate becomes the place of removal. According to the definition of input service in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the main definition refers to any service used by the manufacturer in or in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. Therefore the cenvat credit was disallowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of cenvat credit in terms of Boards Circular No. dated dt. 23.8.2007 which states that credit may be allowed if the goods are cleared on FOR basis.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant refers to the definition of input service and states that service received and used by the manufacturer for clearance from the place of removal till the gods reached the destination falls within the definition of input service. He relied on the larger bench decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. ABB Ltd.