<?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 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236051</link>
    <description>Steel used merely to fabricate structural support for raw mill, silo and packing plant was treated as not prima facie qualifying as capital goods or as components, parts or accessories under the CENVAT Credit Rules, so credit on that category was held inadmissible at the interim stage. By contrast, pre-fabricated steel structures used in assembling the pre-heater tower were viewed as having a different prima facie character because they were classified under Chapter 84 and duty had been paid, so the pre-deposit requirement was confined to the balance dispute. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.33,00,000, with waiver and stay granted for the remaining demand on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:55:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236051</link>
      <description>Steel used merely to fabricate structural support for raw mill, silo and packing plant was treated as not prima facie qualifying as capital goods or as components, parts or accessories under the CENVAT Credit Rules, so credit on that category was held inadmissible at the interim stage. By contrast, pre-fabricated steel structures used in assembling the pre-heater tower were viewed as having a different prima facie character because they were classified under Chapter 84 and duty had been paid, so the pre-deposit requirement was confined to the balance dispute. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.33,00,000, with waiver and stay granted for the remaining demand on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>