TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egral part of the Power Plant and Machinery, were eligible for credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: E/40045/2018 - Final Order No. 42979/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. V. S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Original No. 36/2017 (C)(C.Ex.) dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise, Puducherry. 2.1 Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Caustic Soda Lye falling under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and discharged applicable duties of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit availed on MS Angles, Bars and Channels on the ground that these items fell under Chapter 72 and 83, which disqualified the same from being considered as capital goods. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come in appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. V. S. Manoj appeared on behalf of the assessee while Ld. AC (AR) Shri. L. Nandakumar appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate submitted that the fabrication work using the MS Angles, Bars, etc. was with reference to the composite structure of pipeline and its support; that it is not the case that the credit of duty on capital goods alone would be given without the support structure; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned Order being correct, requires to be sustained. 6. I have considered the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and have very anxiously considered the decisions of the Hon ble High Court in the case of M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., the larger Bench decision in the case of M /s. Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) as well as the Order of CESTAT, Chennai in the assessee s own case (supra). 7. Judicial propriety demands that the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court is binding and therefore, same is to be followed. I find that this decision has also been followed by this Tribunal, in the assessee s own case, for an earlier period (supra). Hence, following the above ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
