TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Manufacturer wins credit for milk coolers & DG sets at collection centers</h1> <h3>M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II</h3> M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 328 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues:Whether the appellant is entitled to avail credit on bulk milk cooler installed at milk collection center and DG sets away from the factory or not.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing health products, procures milk from nearby villages for production. To facilitate this, the appellant sets up milk collection centers in neighboring villages, installing bulk milk coolers (BMC) and DG sets. The appellant availed credit on these capital goods. However, a show cause notice was issued, denying the credit on the grounds that the goods were not used in the factory. Both lower authorities upheld the denial of credit, imposing penalties and interest. The appellant contended that the milk collection centers are integral to their manufacturing process, referring to various legal precedents supporting their position. The appellant argued that the ownership of milk is transferred at the collection centers, making them part of the manufacturing unit.The opposing argument highlighted that the BMC and DG sets were installed far from the factory premises, challenging the eligibility for credit based on the definition of capital goods and factory premises. The definition of factory premises was emphasized, stating that the goods must be used within the precincts where manufacturing processes occur. Legal precedents were cited to support the denial of credit to the appellant.After considering the submissions, the judge analyzed relevant legal judgments. The decision in the case of Bharat Oman Refineries was discussed regarding the interpretation of premises and precincts. Legal precedents such as South Eastern Coalfields and Vikash Industrial Gases were reviewed, with a comparison to the decision in Vikram Cement. The judge referenced the Hindalco Industries Ltd. case, emphasizing the concept of an integrated unit for availing credit on capital goods. The judgment in Birla Corporation Ltd. was also discussed, highlighting the availability of Modvat credit in similar circumstances.Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit on bulk milk coolers and DG sets. The decision was based on the installation of these goods in premises leased by the appellant and used for manufacturing their final products. The judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.
TaxTMI 