<?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>2012 (12) TMI 261 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219246</link>
    <description>Credit under Rule 57Q was available for items used as parts or accessories of machinery in the factory, including materials used to fabricate such parts, but not for goods used to erect machinery, make foundations, or construct supporting structures treated as immovable property. The Tribunal therefore allowed credit only item-wise where the declared use showed a machinery part or accessory, and denied it where the use was structural or for erection purposes. The enhanced penalty was also unsustainable because the earlier round had upheld penalty only to the extent of Rs. 1,000 and the remand did not permit an increase beyond that figure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 261 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219246</link>
      <description>Credit under Rule 57Q was available for items used as parts or accessories of machinery in the factory, including materials used to fabricate such parts, but not for goods used to erect machinery, make foundations, or construct supporting structures treated as immovable property. The Tribunal therefore allowed credit only item-wise where the declared use showed a machinery part or accessory, and denied it where the use was structural or for erection purposes. The enhanced penalty was also unsustainable because the earlier round had upheld penalty only to the extent of Rs. 1,000 and the remand did not permit an increase beyond that figure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>