M\/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Pune-II
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 1014 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 16-2-2018
E\/87382\/2017 – A\/85588\/2018
Central Excise
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for Appellant
\nShri Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent
\nThe appellant availed cenvat credit in respect of 'Diesel Hydraulic Shunting Locomotive' in the month of June 2013 and the same was intimated to the department vide letter dt. 6.8.2013 thereafter proof of correspondence were made between the department and the appellant. The show cause notice came to be issued only on 14.1.2016. The adjudicating authority confirme<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ) = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Pune-IICentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 1014 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 16-2-2018E\/87382\/2017 – A\/85588\/2018Central ExciseShri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent The appellant availed cenvat credit in respect of 'Diesel … Continue reading “M\/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Pune-II”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (iv) CCE, C & ST vs. Bhusan Steel Ltd. 2012 (286) ELT 745 (Tri. Kolkata)
\n (v) Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CCE 2017 (352) ELT 235 (Tri-Del.)
\n (vi) Hitachi Life & Solution India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2014 (311) ELT 102 (Tri.-Chennai)
\n3. Shri Manoj Kumar Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of cus. & C.Ex. Jaipur 2009 (235) ELT 289 (Tri.-Del.) whereby the Tribunal held that credit in respect of rail locomotive falling under heading 8602 is not admissible either as capital goods or inputs.
\n4.On careful consideration of the submissions made by bot<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n