<?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>2013 (6) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234703</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in mines was held prima facie unavailable when the alleged ISD invoices did not properly disclose the recipient premises and the distribution mechanism did not satisfy Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The record noted that the mines had separate identity in different States and that the ore was supplied to more than one unit, which weakened the claim to credit through the stated ISD arrangement. On limitation, prior disclosure to the department meant the extended period was prima facie not invocable, so only the normal-period demand was considered for pre-deposit. Partial pre-deposit was directed and stay granted for the balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2014 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234703</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in mines was held prima facie unavailable when the alleged ISD invoices did not properly disclose the recipient premises and the distribution mechanism did not satisfy Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The record noted that the mines had separate identity in different States and that the ore was supplied to more than one unit, which weakened the claim to credit through the stated ISD arrangement. On limitation, prior disclosure to the department meant the extended period was prima facie not invocable, so only the normal-period demand was considered for pre-deposit. Partial pre-deposit was directed and stay granted for the balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>