Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Chennai vs Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 21 September, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

Appeal No. E/1053/2004

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2004 (M-I) dated 18.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member 

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

CCE, Chennai							Appellant

     
     Vs.


Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.		        Respondents

Appearance Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the Appellant S/Shri R. Raghavan & M. Kannan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 21.09.2010 Date of Decision: 21.09.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Availment of CENVAT credit on parts of capital goods has been objected to by the Department.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the adjudicating authority against whose order the Revenue had preferred an appeal before him, had based the order on Commissioners Order No. 3/2002 dated 4.2.2002 extending credit. Although the order dated 4.2.2002 extends credit on capital goods, and the case of the Revenue before the Tribunal in appeal is that the items in question in the present case are parts of capital goods and not capital goods themselves, we see no merit in the Revenues appeal for the reason that even parts of capital goods are eligible to credit. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) 		  (Jyoti Balasundaram)
        Technical Member 			         Vice President

Rex 
??

??

??

??




2