<?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 715 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353979</link>
    <description>The amended Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 removed credit for services linked to setting up and activities relating to business, while continuing credit for services used for modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory or related office; the exclusion was treated as aimed mainly at construction and works contract services for buildings, civil structures or foundations. On limitation, disclosure of facts in records and production of documents during audit meant there was no suppression, misdeclaration or intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside on limitation and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 715 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353979</link>
      <description>The amended Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 removed credit for services linked to setting up and activities relating to business, while continuing credit for services used for modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory or related office; the exclusion was treated as aimed mainly at construction and works contract services for buildings, civil structures or foundations. On limitation, disclosure of facts in records and production of documents during audit meant there was no suppression, misdeclaration or intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside on limitation and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>