<?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 1059 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271267</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on rails, sleepers, joints, crossings and similar railway track materials used within the factory was treated as admissible because the materials had a direct nexus with manufacture and were integrally connected with internal movement and handling of raw materials, semi-finished goods, finished goods and crane operations. The ruling also relied on certainty and consistency, noting that credit had been allowed on similar goods for a subsequent period in the same assessee&#039;s case, so denial could not be sustained merely because the claim was framed differently at different stages. Credit was therefore allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1059 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271267</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on rails, sleepers, joints, crossings and similar railway track materials used within the factory was treated as admissible because the materials had a direct nexus with manufacture and were integrally connected with internal movement and handling of raw materials, semi-finished goods, finished goods and crane operations. The ruling also relied on certainty and consistency, noting that credit had been allowed on similar goods for a subsequent period in the same assessee&#039;s case, so denial could not be sustained merely because the claim was framed differently at different stages. Credit was therefore allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>