<?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>2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249845</link>
    <description>Structural steel items used in the erection of plant and machinery for a cement unit were treated as eligible capital goods for CENVAT credit because they formed integral components of the machinery and satisfied the user test. The Court followed the assessee&#039;s own earlier case on the same factual matrix and held that the contrary precedent relied on by the Revenue was distinguishable on its facts. Credit was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 15:14:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249845</link>
      <description>Structural steel items used in the erection of plant and machinery for a cement unit were treated as eligible capital goods for CENVAT credit because they formed integral components of the machinery and satisfied the user test. The Court followed the assessee&#039;s own earlier case on the same factual matrix and held that the contrary precedent relied on by the Revenue was distinguishable on its facts. Credit was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>