<?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 (9) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236810</link>
    <description>GTA transportation of clinker from the factory to a depot for onward movement was examined against the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The analysis treated the concept of &quot;place of removal&quot; as relevant for transportation up to that point, but noted that for clinker, which attracted specific duty, the factory gate was treated prima facie as the place where duty became payable on removal. On that basis, transportation after clearance from the factory was treated prima facie as outside input service, and no prima facie case was made out for waiver of pre-deposit. The disputed Cenvat credit was therefore directed to be deposited within the stipulated time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236810</link>
      <description>GTA transportation of clinker from the factory to a depot for onward movement was examined against the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The analysis treated the concept of &quot;place of removal&quot; as relevant for transportation up to that point, but noted that for clinker, which attracted specific duty, the factory gate was treated prima facie as the place where duty became payable on removal. On that basis, transportation after clearance from the factory was treated prima facie as outside input service, and no prima facie case was made out for waiver of pre-deposit. The disputed Cenvat credit was therefore directed to be deposited within the stipulated time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>