M\/s. Southern Agro Implements Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1496 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/42636\/2017 – Final Order No. 41745\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri G. Mani, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Condenser and Vacuum System and are availing the facility of service tax paid on input services. It was noticed by the Department that for the period February, 2011 to October, 2015, they had filed Cenvat Credit on cleaning\/housekeeping services which, according to t<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n well cover the said services and that these services are related to the manufacturing activity. He relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sai life Sciences Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cus. & S.T., Hyderabad-IV, 2017 (51) S.T.R. 55 (Tri. – Hyd.) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE Visakhapatnam-I, 2017 (47) S.T.R. 33 (Tri.- Hyd.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Southern Agro Implements Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai NorthCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1496 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-6-2018Appeal No. E\/42636\/2017 – Final Order No. 41745\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri G. Mani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Southern Agro Implements Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North”<\/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-13405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13405","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=13405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The learned AR, Shri R. Subramaniyan, supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision in the case of M\/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi [2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (SC)]
\n4. Heard both sides
\n5. It is brought out from the records that the appellant has availed the impugned services for the purpose of cleaning the equipment\/machinery used in the manufacturing activity. Furthe<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n