<?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 1044 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325860</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods used to construct a dry dock was admissible because the dry dock was integral to ship-building and repair operations, and the credit denial was set aside. Credit claimed on inputs allegedly used exclusively in ship manufacture required fresh factual verification, so that issue was remanded for reconsideration. Credit could not be denied merely because input service credit appeared in ER-1 returns, and the invoice-related objection was also remanded after disclosure of the relied-upon report and hearing. Penalty was unsustainable once the principal credit issues were set aside or remanded, so it was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:36:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1044 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325860</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods used to construct a dry dock was admissible because the dry dock was integral to ship-building and repair operations, and the credit denial was set aside. Credit claimed on inputs allegedly used exclusively in ship manufacture required fresh factual verification, so that issue was remanded for reconsideration. Credit could not be denied merely because input service credit appeared in ER-1 returns, and the invoice-related objection was also remanded after disclosure of the relied-upon report and hearing. Penalty was unsustainable once the principal credit issues were set aside or remanded, so it was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>