<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1121 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338041</link>
    <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit on CRSS coils, HR coils and copper cathode depended on whether the goods were actually used as inputs or capital goods in the manufacturing process. The assessee claimed direct use in fabricating cover boxes for annealing furnace furniture and in copper coating of rolls, while the lower authority had rejected credit for lack of supporting evidence and for not being satisfied that the goods met the relevant description. The Tribunal held that eligibility turned on factual examination of use in manufacture and that the material on record had not been adequately assessed. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after considering the evidence to be produced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1121 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338041</link>
      <description>Modvat/Cenvat credit on CRSS coils, HR coils and copper cathode depended on whether the goods were actually used as inputs or capital goods in the manufacturing process. The assessee claimed direct use in fabricating cover boxes for annealing furnace furniture and in copper coating of rolls, while the lower authority had rejected credit for lack of supporting evidence and for not being satisfied that the goods met the relevant description. The Tribunal held that eligibility turned on factual examination of use in manufacture and that the material on record had not been adequately assessed. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after considering the evidence to be produced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>