<?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>2016 (1) TMI 61 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270269</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was admissible on MS angles, channels, plates, flats, joints and HR sheets where the assessee showed their use in manufacturing parts and components of plant and machinery. The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were used as embedded structures, factory shed material or foundation/support items. A technical certificate supported use in storage tanks, conveyor system, kiln cooler, chimney, transfer chutes and related equipment, placing the items within manufacture of Chapter 84 components rather than mere structural steel. The reasoning in Vandana Global was held inapplicable on these facts, and the principle in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. was followed, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:10:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 61 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270269</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was admissible on MS angles, channels, plates, flats, joints and HR sheets where the assessee showed their use in manufacturing parts and components of plant and machinery. The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were used as embedded structures, factory shed material or foundation/support items. A technical certificate supported use in storage tanks, conveyor system, kiln cooler, chimney, transfer chutes and related equipment, placing the items within manufacture of Chapter 84 components rather than mere structural steel. The reasoning in Vandana Global was held inapplicable on these facts, and the principle in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. was followed, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>