<?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 (11) TMI 229 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334211</link>
    <description>Steel items used in fabrication and installation of support structures for plant machinery and capital goods were treated as eligible for cenvat credit because their actual use was integral to making the machinery functional, not merely part of civil construction. Applying the user test, the exclusion of credit was found unsustainable. On limitation, the dispute involved a bona fide interpretation issue with conflicting judicial views, so suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement was not established and the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the credit demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 229 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334211</link>
      <description>Steel items used in fabrication and installation of support structures for plant machinery and capital goods were treated as eligible for cenvat credit because their actual use was integral to making the machinery functional, not merely part of civil construction. Applying the user test, the exclusion of credit was found unsustainable. On limitation, the dispute involved a bona fide interpretation issue with conflicting judicial views, so suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement was not established and the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the credit demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>