<?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 (4) TMI 431 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341461</link>
    <description>The appeal addressed the eligibility of CENVAT credit on MS items used for repair and maintenance in the manufacturing of heavy engineering goods. The Tribunal emphasized that CENVAT credit is allowable only on items used for maintenance and repair of plant and machinery, not for non-manufacturing activities. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper bifurcation of items used for eligible activities. The Tribunal clarified that CENVAT credit can only be allowed on items used for repair and maintenance activities related to plant and machinery. The appeal was allowed for quantification of penalty following the bifurcation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:21:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 431 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341461</link>
      <description>The appeal addressed the eligibility of CENVAT credit on MS items used for repair and maintenance in the manufacturing of heavy engineering goods. The Tribunal emphasized that CENVAT credit is allowable only on items used for maintenance and repair of plant and machinery, not for non-manufacturing activities. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper bifurcation of items used for eligible activities. The Tribunal clarified that CENVAT credit can only be allowed on items used for repair and maintenance activities related to plant and machinery. The appeal was allowed for quantification of penalty following the bifurcation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>