M\/s. Esab India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Chennai Outer)
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1495 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/42624-42631\/2017 – Final Order No. 41735-41742\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri P. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nThe issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
\n2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Welding Electrodes and Welding Fluxes and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input ser<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n yees of the appellant-factory. That these services are essentially necessary for the manufacturing activity of the appellant-factory. It is also pointed out by him that the period is prior to 01.04.2011, when the definition of “input services” had a wide ambit, as it included the words 'activities relating to business'. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd., [2017 (6) TMI 910] and M\/s. Visteon Automotive Systems India Ltd.[ 2016 (12) TMI 1383]. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Esab India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Chennai Outer)Central Excise2018 (8) TMI 1495 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-6-2018Appeal No. E\/42624-42631\/2017 – Final Order No. 41735-41742\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri P. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s. Esab India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Chennai Outer)”<\/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-13404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13404","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=13404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The learned AR, R. Subramaniam, supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n5. Heard both sides.
\n6. The short issue for consideration is whether the servi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n