11711 of 2011.
88/2014.
01/2009 dated January 9, 2009 companyfirming the demands initiated in the aforesaid show cause numberice.
11711 of 2016 Page 1 of 10 determination is as to whether the expression input service as defined in Rule 2 l of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2004 , in the companytext of a service provider, would also include services which are used in or in relation to providing taxation output services described in the definition and the outward transportation to the purchaser would be treated as beyond the place of removal.
The respondent being aggrieved by the Order in Original No.
11711 of 2016 Page 3 of 10 involved is less than Rs.5 lakhs.
26346/2013 dated August 14, 2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that the same is companyered by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore v. ABB Ltd., Vadodara1.
46 of 2011 G ST dated December 2, 2011 by preferring appeal bearing Appeal No.
The aforesaid show cause numberice was duly adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Eluru Division vide Order in Original No.
Vide Order in Appeal Nos.
46/2011 G ST dated December 2, 2011, allowed the appeals by setting aside the Order in Original with companysequential relief to the respondent.
01/2009 dated January 9, 2009 filed appeal before the Commissioner Appeals , Guntur.
390/Misc./163/2010 JC dated August 17, 2011, as the amount 1 2011 23 STR 97 Kar Civil Appeal Nos.
11711 of 2016 Page 2 of 10 the Rules, 2004.
Not satisfied with this outcome, the Revenue took the matter to the High Court in the form of Appeal No.
For the sake of companyvenience, we may reproduce the events from Civil Appeal No.
E/510/2012 DB before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT , Bangalore.
The Revenue challenged the Order in Appeal No.
The respondent M s. Andhra Sugars Ltd. are the manufacturers of sugar, molasses etc.
at their Tanuku, Taduvai Bhimadole units and manufacturers of various inorganic chemicals at their Kovvur and Saggonda units.
The question, therefore, which needs Civil Appeal Nos.
Accordingly, show cause numberice dated November 3, 2008 was issued to the respondent demanding the Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,87,763/ availed during the above mentioned period along with interest and proposing to impose penalty under Rule 15 of Civil Appeal Nos.
It came to the numberice of the Revenue that during the periods December, 2007, the respondent at their unit Saggonda, had taken credit of input services namely service tax paid on transportation charges upto the place of customers which according to the Revenue is inadmissible.
K. SIKRI, J. The question of law which needs determination in all these appeals is identical.
It pertains to Cenvat Credit in respect of Signature Not Verified service tax paid on goods that are transported to the purchaser Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.02.05 164847 IST Reason after the sale.
They were availing credit on inputs, capital goods and input services and utlising the same for payment of duty.
