https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391024 The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the decision to refuse common registration for the Duliajan plant with the Lepetkata plant. It was determined that separate registration is required for each manufacturing facility, and the connection via a pipeline does not qualify for common registration. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit on capital goods and services used in the Duliajan plant as they must be utilized in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products to be eligible for credit. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391024 The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the decision to refuse common registration for the Duliajan plant with the Lepetkata plant. It was determined that separate registration is required for each manufacturing facility, and the connection via a pipeline does not qualify for common registration. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit on capital goods and services used in the Duliajan plant as they must be utilized in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products to be eligible for credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391024