<?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 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339556</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was admissible on service tax paid for excavation, drilling, removal of overburden and coal-cutting undertaken in mining operations, because those activities were treated as site formation and clearance services during the period when mining service was not separately taxable. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because the tax had been paid on services actually used in the assessee&#039;s operations, and the adjudicating and appellate authorities accepted that credit on that basis. The objection that the order breached Board circular instructions was rejected, as a circular cannot curtail or override a quasi-judicial determination. The impugned order was upheld and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339556</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was admissible on service tax paid for excavation, drilling, removal of overburden and coal-cutting undertaken in mining operations, because those activities were treated as site formation and clearance services during the period when mining service was not separately taxable. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because the tax had been paid on services actually used in the assessee&#039;s operations, and the adjudicating and appellate authorities accepted that credit on that basis. The objection that the order breached Board circular instructions was rejected, as a circular cannot curtail or override a quasi-judicial determination. The impugned order was upheld and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>