<?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>2018 (1) TMI 620 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353884</link>
    <description>Steel and iron items used within a factory for fabricating support structures, platforms, staircases, walkways and other arrangements essential to the erection and functioning of machinery and capital goods may qualify for CENVAT credit. The admissibility turns on whether the facts show use for creditable installation-related fabrication rather than for non-creditable civil construction or permanently embedded structures. The commentary notes that later High Court rulings displaced reliance on the Larger Bench view in Vandana Global where the factual matrix supports credit. On the stated facts, credit was admissible and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 620 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353884</link>
      <description>Steel and iron items used within a factory for fabricating support structures, platforms, staircases, walkways and other arrangements essential to the erection and functioning of machinery and capital goods may qualify for CENVAT credit. The admissibility turns on whether the facts show use for creditable installation-related fabrication rather than for non-creditable civil construction or permanently embedded structures. The commentary notes that later High Court rulings displaced reliance on the Larger Bench view in Vandana Global where the factual matrix supports credit. On the stated facts, credit was admissible and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>