2008 (2) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Suhag, DR, for the Respondent.   [Order]. - The appellants filed these appeals against denial of credit on parts and components of capital goods. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that Cenvat credit on these components, parts etc. were admissible to the contractor who was the manufacturer of individual machines and not to the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority dropped t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the transaction is between principal to principal basis. He submits that the Paharpur Cooling Towers manufactured the machines where the parts and components were used and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to take credit on these parts and components and the machines are not excisable goods as immovable property. 4. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere used in the appellant's factory in the machines for manufacture of final products. So, there is no justification for denial of credit to the appellants. 5. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly denied the credit on the ground that the machines namely cooling towers, strip caster are immovable property. I find that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that the credit is admis....