<?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 (3) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325430</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was denied on cascades and compressors installed at Daughter Booster Stations because the compressed natural gas had already been manufactured at the Mother Station, and the downstream equipment was used only to transport and recompress an existing marketable product without resulting in a new manufacture. Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 27 was held inapplicable since the relevant compression occurred at the Mother Station, not the Daughter Booster Stations. The limitation defence also failed because filing returns and obtaining centralized registration did not amount to full disclosure of the specific credit availed, so the extended period remained available. The denial of credit and the demand were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325430</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was denied on cascades and compressors installed at Daughter Booster Stations because the compressed natural gas had already been manufactured at the Mother Station, and the downstream equipment was used only to transport and recompress an existing marketable product without resulting in a new manufacture. Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 27 was held inapplicable since the relevant compression occurred at the Mother Station, not the Daughter Booster Stations. The limitation defence also failed because filing returns and obtaining centralized registration did not amount to full disclosure of the specific credit availed, so the extended period remained available. The denial of credit and the demand were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>