<?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 897 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345785</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held wrongly denied where the record did not establish that capital goods were used solely for exempted job-work goods; the surrounding facts showed mixed use, so the demand failed. Duty on the component washing machine was also unsustainable because the evidence showed only a developing prototype with no proof of completed, marketable manufacture. Allegations that challan entries for capital goods supplied by the principal were falsified likewise failed, since the return period had not expired and no concoction was proved; at most, the matter disclosed a technical irregularity. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 897 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345785</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held wrongly denied where the record did not establish that capital goods were used solely for exempted job-work goods; the surrounding facts showed mixed use, so the demand failed. Duty on the component washing machine was also unsustainable because the evidence showed only a developing prototype with no proof of completed, marketable manufacture. Allegations that challan entries for capital goods supplied by the principal were falsified likewise failed, since the return period had not expired and no concoction was proved; at most, the matter disclosed a technical irregularity. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>