<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (9) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76778</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was denied on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of factory pipelines because, following the later Tribunal view, they did not qualify as eligible inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules; the demand survived only within the normal limitation period. Credit was allowed on aluminium sheets used as lining material in cooling trays for crystallising the product, since they were used in the factory in relation to manufacture and were therefore admissible. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable because the returns disclosed the relevant goods and no suppression was shown, and penalty was accordingly set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76778</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was denied on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of factory pipelines because, following the later Tribunal view, they did not qualify as eligible inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules; the demand survived only within the normal limitation period. Credit was allowed on aluminium sheets used as lining material in cooling trays for crystallising the product, since they were used in the factory in relation to manufacture and were therefore admissible. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable because the returns disclosed the relevant goods and no suppression was shown, and penalty was accordingly set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>