<?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 (7) TMI 1064 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330466</link>
    <description>The appellant was granted Cenvat credit for service tax paid on technical inspection and certification service for pipelines and installation service for laying pipelines used in water transportation to the manufacturing unit. The court held that the services were essential for the manufacturing process of concentrated ores, as water transportation is crucial for further concentration. The appellant&#039;s exclusive use of the pipelines for this purpose aligned with the broad definition of &quot;input service,&quot; allowing for the credit. The Tribunal&#039;s restrictive interpretation was deemed incorrect, and the appellant&#039;s appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1064 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330466</link>
      <description>The appellant was granted Cenvat credit for service tax paid on technical inspection and certification service for pipelines and installation service for laying pipelines used in water transportation to the manufacturing unit. The court held that the services were essential for the manufacturing process of concentrated ores, as water transportation is crucial for further concentration. The appellant&#039;s exclusive use of the pipelines for this purpose aligned with the broad definition of &quot;input service,&quot; allowing for the credit. The Tribunal&#039;s restrictive interpretation was deemed incorrect, and the appellant&#039;s appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>