<?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>2008 (7) TMI 678 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124033</link>
    <description>Credit under Rule 57Q was denied for items clearly outside the capital goods category, including lighting fixtures and tubulars, while other disputed items were remanded for factual verification of actual use, classification, and eligibility. Credit on hot rolled plate or bar plate used for maintenance and repair of plant and machinery was treated as admissible, reflecting a functional nexus with the manufacturing apparatus. The invocation of the extended limitation period was not adequately supported by findings of suppression or wilful misstatement, so that issue was also remanded for fresh consideration. The matter was sent back for de novo decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 678 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124033</link>
      <description>Credit under Rule 57Q was denied for items clearly outside the capital goods category, including lighting fixtures and tubulars, while other disputed items were remanded for factual verification of actual use, classification, and eligibility. Credit on hot rolled plate or bar plate used for maintenance and repair of plant and machinery was treated as admissible, reflecting a functional nexus with the manufacturing apparatus. The invocation of the extended limitation period was not adequately supported by findings of suppression or wilful misstatement, so that issue was also remanded for fresh consideration. The matter was sent back for de novo decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>