Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 542 - CESTAT CHENNAIAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Respondents have used MS angles, channels, plates, etc., for welding a structure on which overhead travelling cranes can be installed - Held that:- The Tariff is only distinguishing one kind of crane from the other and in this particular case, the reference is to an overhead travelling crane which is placed on fixed support and which travels on such support. It does not automatically mean that the support will also be part of the crane. For example, it cannot be anybody’s case that the railway track should be considered as part of the railway engine. As such, argument of the learned counsel which is also the basis of the decision of the lower appellate authority cannot be accepted. The overhead travelling cranes are distinct products classified differently from the rails on which they move and the structures which support the rail. Hence applying the ratio of both Vandana Global (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)) and Saraswati Sugar Mills (2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), it has to be held that the respondents do not have a case on merits - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|