<?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 (9) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347385</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was admissible on MS angles, channels, beams, plates and similar structural items used to fabricate capital goods support structures inside the factory, because the user test was satisfied where those items formed part of machinery support integral to the functioning of the capital goods. The reasoning treated structurals worked upon for supporting equipment as part of the relevant machine or its components, spares or accessories, and noted that the 7-7-2009 amendment to the definition of input was prospective. Denial of credit on the ground that the items were used for fabrication of support structures was therefore unsustainable, and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:57:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347385</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was admissible on MS angles, channels, beams, plates and similar structural items used to fabricate capital goods support structures inside the factory, because the user test was satisfied where those items formed part of machinery support integral to the functioning of the capital goods. The reasoning treated structurals worked upon for supporting equipment as part of the relevant machine or its components, spares or accessories, and noted that the 7-7-2009 amendment to the definition of input was prospective. Denial of credit on the ground that the items were used for fabrication of support structures was therefore unsustainable, and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>