M\/s. Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 822 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 12-10-2018
Appeal No. E\/40084\/2018 – Final Order No. 42629\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakukmar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nThe appellant has filed the above appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the denial of CENVAT credit availed on rent-a-cab services during the period September 2009 to March 2010.
\n2. Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of automobile parts and accessories and are availing<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n urpose of picking up and dropping of employees of the appellant's factory. She relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. – 2012 (277) ELT 315 (Kar.) and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Visteon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. – 2017-TIOL-57-HC-MAD-CX and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Titan Industries Ltd. – 2018 (6) TMI 1076 – CESTAT CHENNAI in support of her argument. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai OuterCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 822 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 12-10-2018Appeal No. E\/40084\/2018 – Final Order No. 42629\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakukmar, AC (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. 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-15046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15046","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=15046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n5. After hearing both sides, I find that the period involved be<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n