<?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>2010 (12) TMI 244 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203203</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 could not be denied by confining the inquiry to only one clause of the definition of capital goods; the authorities were required to examine all relevant clauses and the supporting record, including whether the goods were used in manufacture of capital goods for the final product. Credit relating to fuel oil additive could not be reopened by the Commissioner (Appeals) when that issue was not under challenge, as the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to deny it. The remaining disputed items were remanded for fresh adjudication, and the associated penalty and interest directions could not survive pending reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 244 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203203</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 could not be denied by confining the inquiry to only one clause of the definition of capital goods; the authorities were required to examine all relevant clauses and the supporting record, including whether the goods were used in manufacture of capital goods for the final product. Credit relating to fuel oil additive could not be reopened by the Commissioner (Appeals) when that issue was not under challenge, as the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to deny it. The remaining disputed items were remanded for fresh adjudication, and the associated penalty and interest directions could not survive pending reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>