<?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 145 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347388</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on MS angles, channels, beams, TMT bars, CTD bars and similar structural items was admissible when they were used to fabricate support structures for capital goods. Applying the user test, the Tribunal treated such items, once integrated into the necessary supports on which machinery was installed and operated, as part of the capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It also held that the later amendment treating such credit differently operated prospectively and did not affect the period in dispute. The credit, along with related interest and penalties, was therefore not sustainable against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 145 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347388</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on MS angles, channels, beams, TMT bars, CTD bars and similar structural items was admissible when they were used to fabricate support structures for capital goods. Applying the user test, the Tribunal treated such items, once integrated into the necessary supports on which machinery was installed and operated, as part of the capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It also held that the later amendment treating such credit differently operated prospectively and did not affect the period in dispute. The credit, along with related interest and penalties, was therefore not sustainable against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>