M\/s. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 253 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E\/42015\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42887\/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
\nFor the Appellant: Ms. S. Sridevi and Shri Nitin, Adv\/s.
\nFor the Respondent: Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nBrief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of brake linings and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of audit, it was found that the appellants have availed service tax credit on Product Liability Insurance for <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nished products, namely, brake lining, clutch facings and railway brake blocks. In case, the appellants are not indemnified for defects of the finished products, they would incur huge financial losses for payment of compensation. Such insurance policies are directly related to the manufacture of the finished products. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M\/s. Sify Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vide Final Order No.42550\/2018, dated 09.10.2018 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported in 2018 (7) TMI 611 – CESTAT CHENNAI. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAICentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 253 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 13-11-2018E\/42015\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42887\/2018Central ExciseSmt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant: Ms. S. Sridevi and Shri Nitin, Adv\/s. For the Respondent: Shri L. Nandakumar, … Continue reading “M\/s. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI”<\/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-16591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16591","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=16591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n5. Heard both sides,
\n6. The issue is the eligibility of cre<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n