<?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 1438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340935</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of electric energy meters, regarding the availability of Cenvat credit for common input services used by multiple manufacturing units. It held that full credit should be available for services used in both dutiable and exempted goods, citing Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal also allowed the distribution of Cenvat credit by the Input Service Distributor to the dutiable unit, emphasizing that Rule 7 did not restrict credit distribution based on the type of goods manufactured. The impact of the amendment to Rule 7 was deemed irrelevant to the case covering the period prior to Jan 2010.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340935</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of electric energy meters, regarding the availability of Cenvat credit for common input services used by multiple manufacturing units. It held that full credit should be available for services used in both dutiable and exempted goods, citing Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal also allowed the distribution of Cenvat credit by the Input Service Distributor to the dutiable unit, emphasizing that Rule 7 did not restrict credit distribution based on the type of goods manufactured. The impact of the amendment to Rule 7 was deemed irrelevant to the case covering the period prior to Jan 2010.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>