M\/s. KOG-KTV Food Products India P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tirunelveli
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1655 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 17-8-2018
Appeal No. E\/163\/2012 – Final Order No. 42287\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture RPD palm oil \/ palmolein oil and palm fatty acid distillate. They were availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods etc. They availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs li<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ishnan submitted that the appellant had used the impugned steel items for fabrication of storage tanks at site. The storage tanks so manufactured is mentioned as capital goods in definition of CENVAT Credit Rules. Denial of credit on the ground that the impugned storage tanks are embedded to earth after fabrication and has become immovable property is not legally correct. The adjudicating authority has wrongly interpreted the decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) to deny the credit. He relied upon the decision in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars – 2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.) and argued that on identical issue, the jurisdictional High Court has held that credit is eligible<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. KOG-KTV Food Products India P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise TirunelveliCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1655 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 17-8-2018Appeal No. E\/163\/2012 – Final Order No. 42287\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant … Continue reading “M\/s. KOG-KTV Food Products India P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tirunelveli”<\/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-14124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14124","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=14124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14124"}],"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