<?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 (5) TMI 806 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343068</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on insurance services was treated as admissible where the services were used in relation to the business of manufacture. Insurance for plant and machinery, marine transit and cash-in-transit was covered because it was integral to manufacturing operations under the inclusive part of Rule 2(l). Employee group insurance was also allowed, as compliance with statutory employee-insurance requirements formed part of the manufacturing business. The amendment deleting the words activities relating to business was not shown to be clarificatory and could not be applied retrospectively to deny credit. The resulting position was that the disputed credit remained available and the retrospective disallowance failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 13:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 806 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343068</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on insurance services was treated as admissible where the services were used in relation to the business of manufacture. Insurance for plant and machinery, marine transit and cash-in-transit was covered because it was integral to manufacturing operations under the inclusive part of Rule 2(l). Employee group insurance was also allowed, as compliance with statutory employee-insurance requirements formed part of the manufacturing business. The amendment deleting the words activities relating to business was not shown to be clarificatory and could not be applied retrospectively to deny credit. The resulting position was that the disputed credit remained available and the retrospective disallowance failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>