<?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 (12) TMI 17 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335372</link>
    <description>Steel items such as MS bars and TMT bars used to fabricate supporting structures and parts for capital goods in the factory were treated as eligible inputs under the broad user test, because the record showed use in installation and functioning of manufacturing equipment rather than mere construction activity. CENVAT credit on those items was therefore admissible and denial was unjustified. Premature availment of otherwise admissible credit within the same financial year, where the assessee remained entitled to the balance credit shortly thereafter, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive irregularity. Credit was not denied on that basis, but interest for the period of irregular availment was sustainable and penalties were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:27:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 17 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335372</link>
      <description>Steel items such as MS bars and TMT bars used to fabricate supporting structures and parts for capital goods in the factory were treated as eligible inputs under the broad user test, because the record showed use in installation and functioning of manufacturing equipment rather than mere construction activity. CENVAT credit on those items was therefore admissible and denial was unjustified. Premature availment of otherwise admissible credit within the same financial year, where the assessee remained entitled to the balance credit shortly thereafter, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive irregularity. Credit was not denied on that basis, but interest for the period of irregular availment was sustainable and penalties were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>