<?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 (7) TMI 435 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345323</link>
    <description>Credit on common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted goods required factual verification under Rule 57CC, including whether reversal had already been made and whether free-supplied materials had to be added for that purpose; the issue was remanded for examination by the adjudicating authority. The dispute on design and drawing charges for the paint booth had already been sent back for factual ascertainment, so the prior remand was left undisturbed. System engineering charges for the coal ship loader also needed verification of the assessee&#039;s claim that the design element was already reflected in the duty-paid price, and that issue too was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 06:42:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 435 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345323</link>
      <description>Credit on common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted goods required factual verification under Rule 57CC, including whether reversal had already been made and whether free-supplied materials had to be added for that purpose; the issue was remanded for examination by the adjudicating authority. The dispute on design and drawing charges for the paint booth had already been sent back for factual ascertainment, so the prior remand was left undisturbed. System engineering charges for the coal ship loader also needed verification of the assessee&#039;s claim that the design element was already reflected in the duty-paid price, and that issue too was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>