<?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 (5) TMI 714 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126376</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on chem ash used for descaling boiler tubes and on components, spares and accessories of conveyors and opto indicators used with capital goods, because such inputs and parts were linked to manufacture and were not required to fit tariff classification independently. Credit was also not denied merely because individual items were not separately listed in a broad declaration, where statutory records showed receipt and use in manufacture. However, credit earlier reversed could not be taken back suo motu after an unprotested debit in the prescribed account; the related demand was sustained and penalty upheld, though reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 714 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126376</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on chem ash used for descaling boiler tubes and on components, spares and accessories of conveyors and opto indicators used with capital goods, because such inputs and parts were linked to manufacture and were not required to fit tariff classification independently. Credit was also not denied merely because individual items were not separately listed in a broad declaration, where statutory records showed receipt and use in manufacture. However, credit earlier reversed could not be taken back suo motu after an unprotested debit in the prescribed account; the related demand was sustained and penalty upheld, though reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>