M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 1223 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 31-1-2018
E\/Misc. \/41966 & 41967\/2017 and E\/103 & 104\/2011 – Final Order Nos. 40262-40263\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
\nMs. Radhika Chandrasekaran, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AC) for the Respondent
\nPer B. Ravichandran,
\nThese two appeals are against common impugned order dated 25.11.2010 of Commissioner, LTU, Chennai.
\n2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. They were in the process of setting up of manufacturing facility in Semmankuppam, Cuddalore. In this connection, they have availed various services by different service providers. The substantial dispute in the present appeals relate to eligibility of the appellant to avail such credits on these various inpu<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ubstantially on the ground that the documents on which such credits were availed were addressed to Radha Nagar office in Cuddalore. This office is neither registered with the Department nor recognized by them. The submission of the appellant is that the Semmankuppam manufacturing facility was being set up at that time. For managing the operation of setting up, they have opened an office nearby in Radha Nagar office which managed such operations. Hence on this technicality, credits cannot be disallowed. Further, on the same reasoning, the Head Office also issued documents like ISD invoices addressed to Radha Nagar office. The services were in fact used while in setting up of the Semmankuppam factory cannot be denied as asserted by the appellant. In fact, the denial of credit is not on this ground. The Revenue inferred that these credits cannot be allowed as these were not addressed to Semmankuppam as the activities were claimed to be relating to setting up of the said factory. Going by <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ara 7.1, invoices with reference to one Karaikal unit of the appellant was mistakenly availed and the credit on this issue was reversed later. All other invoices were with reference to Semmankuppam factory. Certain credit was denied on the ground that the documents were not eligible documents. These were debit notes, work orders containing all the relevant particulars as claimed by the appellant. Credit can be availed by the service recipient if the documents issued contain all the essential requirement of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In fact, the said rule provides for certain discretion to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner which can also be exercised to such satisfaction of the conditions. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, TrichyCentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 1223 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 31-1-2018E\/Misc. \/41966 & 41967\/2017 and E\/103 & 104\/2011 – Final Order Nos. 40262-40263\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Radhika Chandrasekaran, Advocate for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy”<\/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-11555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11555","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=11555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Credits in certain cases were also denied on the ground that the appellant did not pay the full consideration for the services received. The ld. counsel submitted that for certain service providers they have retained some portion of the invoice amount as security, however, they <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n