Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (1) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MS plates, MS angles, channels, steel tubes, rebars, pastable items, ceramic tiles etc. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover credit of Rs. 33,16,916/- covering the period October 2007 to June 2008 and also proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal amount of penalty besides ordering confiscation of the subject items used for fabrication and thus imposed redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri G. Prahlad explained that the MS plates, angles, channels, steel tubes etc. were used for fabrication of capital goods / parts / components.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ji Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2016(333) ELT 454 (Tri. Del.)] d. Mundra Ports & SEZ Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(39) STR 726 (Guj.)] e. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] f. CCE&C, Visakhapatnam-I Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. [2011(267) ELT 311 (AP)] g. CCE&ST Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014(310) ELT 636 (Mad.)] h. Sanghvi Forging & Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-II [2014(302) ELT 136 (Tri. Ahmd.)] i. CCE, Mumbai Vs. Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Co-op Sugar Factory Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 697 (Tri. Mumbai)] j. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2002(147) ELT 996 (Tri. Del.)] k. Commissioner Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2005(183) ELT A159 (SC)]....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of bulk quantities of inputs and final products. Needless to say that the railway sidings laid outside the factory are part and parcel of the facility for transportation provided inside the factory premises. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment laid in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Co.Op. Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra) in which the pipes and fittings used for carrying spent wash (hazardous waste) from distilleries to compost yard, situated outside factory was held to be part and parcel of the pollution control system and has to be treated as capital goods. The credit was held to be admissible. The Tribunal in the said case observed that pipeline fittings within the factory and outside the factory cannot be segr....