Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

2015 (10) TMI 983 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of CENVAT Credit - denial on the sole ground that the said trucks are motor vehicle on which cenvat credit is available only to the specified service provider and not to the manufacturer of the excisable goods - Held that:- On perusal of the definition of 'input' contained in Rule 2 (k) of the Rules, it reveals that the manufacturer is permitted to take cenvat credit on all goods used in the factory for manufacture of the final product. The goods on which cenvat credit is not permissible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nature of its use and its participation in the manufacture/ production of the excisable goods, the same should be considered as input for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. - process of handling/lifting/pumping/transportation of raw materials also a process in or in relation to manufacture, if integrally connected with further operations leading to manufacture of goods. - No substance in the impugned order, and as such, the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds cannot be considered as either input or capital goods. 2. Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri H.V. Ghirnikar appearing for the appellant submits that the concrete sleepers had been used for laying railway line for movement of goods between the plant facilities installed within the factory premises. With regard to JO trucks, the submission, of the ld. Consultant is that the said trucks are specially designed for movement of goods i.e. nitrogen and oxygen gas cylinders within the factory premises. He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ture of final products are conceivable, but the same will not be commercially viable. Thus, according to the ld. Consultant, the disputed goods should qualify as input for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit by the appellant. 3. Per contra, Shri Devender Singh, the ld. JCDR appearing for the respondent submits that JO truck is categorised as 'motor vehicle' and as per the exclusion clause contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit on the said item is not avail .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

262) ELT 348 (Tri.-Chennai). 4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records. 5. I find from the impugned order at paragraph 8.7.2 that the cenvat credit on 'JO Trucks' have been denied to the appellant on the sole ground that the said trucks are motor vehicle on which cenvat credit is available only to the specified service provider and not to the manufacturer of the excisable goods. However, in the impugned order, it has been observed that the JO trucks are used .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce. Thus, both the disputed goods, according to the impugned order, are not eligible for cenvat credit. 6. The term input has been defined in Rule 2 (k) of the cenvat credit rules, 2004. As per the said definition, all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final product are considered as 'inputs' for the purpose of availing the Cenvat benefit. The said definition keeps outside its purview certain goods, on which cenvat credit is not available to the manufacturer. The exclu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dit on all goods used in the factory for manufacture of the final product. The goods on which cenvat credit is not permissible has been clearly spelt out in the exclusion clause of the definition of 'input'. The JO trucks are not considered as motor vehicle as per the Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the same are used only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. In view of the definition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since JO Truck is not to be categori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version