<?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 927 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334909</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was found admissible on steel items used to fabricate a Surface Testing Bench because the bench fell within the relevant capital goods tariff entry, so the items could not be rejected merely for being used in fabrication. Credit was also upheld on MS items used for steel shots in shot blasting machines, as earlier decisions had already recognised such use as covered by the credit scheme. Credit on a diesel generator set was allowed despite the invoice naming another unit, because the generator was received at the appellant&#039;s factory, the transfer was endorsed, and the invoice defect was curable where duty payment and accounting were otherwise established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:47:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 927 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334909</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was found admissible on steel items used to fabricate a Surface Testing Bench because the bench fell within the relevant capital goods tariff entry, so the items could not be rejected merely for being used in fabrication. Credit was also upheld on MS items used for steel shots in shot blasting machines, as earlier decisions had already recognised such use as covered by the credit scheme. Credit on a diesel generator set was allowed despite the invoice naming another unit, because the generator was received at the appellant&#039;s factory, the transfer was endorsed, and the invoice defect was curable where duty payment and accounting were otherwise established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>