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>Tribunal overturns denial of CENVAT Credit on specific goods, citing lack of evidence</h1> <h3>M/s. Cetex Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of G.S.T & C. Ex., Chennai North Commissionerate</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that denied CENVAT Credit on duty paid for MS Angles, Channels, HR Plates, Signal ... CENVAT Credit - capital goods/inputs - MS Angles, Channels and HR Plates, Signal Cables and Seamless Pipes - Held that:- The impugned goods which are used as support structures have been held to be eligible by this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Trichy Vs. M/s. Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 733 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - the remand Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to the ratio laid down by this Bench in the case of M/s. Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd. is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Denial of CENVAT Credit on duty paid for specific goods - MS Angles, Channels, HR Plates, Signal Cables, and Seamless Pipes.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT CreditThe appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal denying CENVAT Credit on duty paid for MS Angles, Channels, HR Plates, Signal Cables, and Seamless Pipes. The Show Cause Notice alleged that these goods were used in a new unit, not the manufacturing unit, and were ineligible for credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the denial, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for a reduced amount, remitting the balance for further examination. The appellant argued that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not require input services to be used only at the manufacturing unit, citing relevant judicial precedents. The appellant also highlighted that the impugned goods were used as support structures, deemed eligible in previous cases. The Department relied on a different High Court decision but lacked substantial evidence for denial. The Tribunal found the remand order unsustainable, as per the precedent set in a previous case, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.This detailed analysis covers the denial of CENVAT Credit on specific goods, the legal arguments presented by both parties, relevant judicial precedents, and the Tribunal's decision based on established legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
