<?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 (11) TMI 461 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267652</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on input services used for the Singur manufacturing unit was admissible because the rules allow credit for services used directly or indirectly in manufacture, including services connected with setting up a factory; later dismantling of the unit did not negate credit already received, and the assessee succeeded on this issue. Credit on iron and steel items claimed as capital goods could not be finally allowed or denied because the record did not conclusively show whether they were used for flooring, mezzanine structures, or other plant-supporting foundations integral to machinery, and the limitation question also required fresh examination; that dispute was remanded for verification and de novo decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 461 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267652</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on input services used for the Singur manufacturing unit was admissible because the rules allow credit for services used directly or indirectly in manufacture, including services connected with setting up a factory; later dismantling of the unit did not negate credit already received, and the assessee succeeded on this issue. Credit on iron and steel items claimed as capital goods could not be finally allowed or denied because the record did not conclusively show whether they were used for flooring, mezzanine structures, or other plant-supporting foundations integral to machinery, and the limitation question also required fresh examination; that dispute was remanded for verification and de novo decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>