{"id":13418,"date":"2018-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2018-05-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-05-29T18:30:00","slug":"m-s-chemplast-sanmar-ltd-versus-commissioner-of-gst-central-excise-trichy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=13418","title":{"rendered":"M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise, Trichy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise, Trichy<br \/>Central Excise<br \/>2018 (5) TMI 1763 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMI<br \/>CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; AT<br \/>Dated:- 30-5-2018<br \/>Appeal No. E\/583\/2010 &#8211; Final Order No. 41674\/2018<br \/>Central Excise<br \/>Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)<br \/>\nMs. S. Nandita Das, Advocate for the Appellant<br \/>\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent<br \/>\nORDER<br \/>\nThe appellants are engaged in manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol and are availing facility of CENVAT credit on central excise duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input services. On perusal of records, it was observed that for the period April 2004 to June 2008, the appellant had availed credit of duties paid on <\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=274713\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>odes were used for fabrication of the tank and without such use of items for fabrication of storage tank, the tank cannot be installed within the premises of the factory so as to be used in the manufacturing process. That the authorities below have disallowed the credit alleging that after fabrication and fixing to the earth, the storage tank becomes an immovable property and therefore the credit is not eligible. The said decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. &#8211; 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) is no longer good law. She submitted that the Hon&#39;ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars reported in 2017 (353) ELT 373 (Mad.) has held the issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. <\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=274713\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>ation of storage tank. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol and such storage tanks are an indispensable item in the manufacturing activity. Without such activity of fabrication using the MS plates, MS sheets, HR coils etc. the storage tank cannot be installed within the factory at the required height to be used in the process of manufacture. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars (supra) had considered the issue and held that the user test evolved by the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court would determine the eligibility of credit of MS items and the credit was thus allowed. The Tribunal, in the appellant&#39;s own case in the final order referred to by the ld. counsel has allowed the credit for a di<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=274713\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise, TrichyCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1763 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMICESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; ATDated:- 30-5-2018Appeal No. E\/583\/2010 &#8211; Final Order No. 41674\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Nandita Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=13418\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise, Trichy&#8221;<\/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-13418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13418","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=13418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}