<?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>2007 (2) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1386</link>
    <description>Plain plates, HR sheets, channels, angles and welding electrodes were held not to qualify as capital goods for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(b)(iii) because general items cannot be treated as components, spares or accessories unless their specific use for eligible machinery is established by evidence. Prior rulings under the former Rule 57Q definition were held inapplicable to the period in question, and credit on welding electrodes for maintenance and repairs was also rejected. The denial of Cenvat credit and consequential interest was upheld. On penalty, a demand equal to the credit was not sustainable because the notice alleged only wrongful availment and did not allege fraud, suppression, collusion or wilful misstatement; the penalty was reduced to the minimum of Rs. 10,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1386</link>
      <description>Plain plates, HR sheets, channels, angles and welding electrodes were held not to qualify as capital goods for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(b)(iii) because general items cannot be treated as components, spares or accessories unless their specific use for eligible machinery is established by evidence. Prior rulings under the former Rule 57Q definition were held inapplicable to the period in question, and credit on welding electrodes for maintenance and repairs was also rejected. The denial of Cenvat credit and consequential interest was upheld. On penalty, a demand equal to the credit was not sustainable because the notice alleged only wrongful availment and did not allege fraud, suppression, collusion or wilful misstatement; the penalty was reduced to the minimum of Rs. 10,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>