<?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>2015 (6) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260809</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on steel items used in erection and support of machinery was treated as admissible where the items had a direct functional nexus with manufacture, including use in supporting structures and plant operation. The authority also noted that photographs and other material could be considered to assess actual usage, and credit was allowed on merits. On limitation, the extended period was held unavailable because the controversy over such credit was unsettled during the relevant period, no sustainable suppression was shown, and the assessee&#039;s area-based exemption made the dispute revenue neutral. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:58:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260809</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on steel items used in erection and support of machinery was treated as admissible where the items had a direct functional nexus with manufacture, including use in supporting structures and plant operation. The authority also noted that photographs and other material could be considered to assess actual usage, and credit was allowed on merits. On limitation, the extended period was held unavailable because the controversy over such credit was unsettled during the relevant period, no sustainable suppression was shown, and the assessee&#039;s area-based exemption made the dispute revenue neutral. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>