<?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 (10) TMI 797 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349642</link>
    <description>Structural steel items such as MS angles, channels and TMT bars may qualify for Cenvat credit when they are used to fabricate support structures for capital goods installed in the factory, because their eligibility depends on the functional user test rather than independent classification as capital goods. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant amendment excluding such goods operates prospectively from 7 July 2009 and is not merely clarificatory. However, credit could be allowed only on proof of actual use, so the factual claim required verification, including supporting evidence such as a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate. The matter was remanded for fresh examination on that limited factual issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 797 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349642</link>
      <description>Structural steel items such as MS angles, channels and TMT bars may qualify for Cenvat credit when they are used to fabricate support structures for capital goods installed in the factory, because their eligibility depends on the functional user test rather than independent classification as capital goods. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant amendment excluding such goods operates prospectively from 7 July 2009 and is not merely clarificatory. However, credit could be allowed only on proof of actual use, so the factual claim required verification, including supporting evidence such as a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate. The matter was remanded for fresh examination on that limited factual issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>