<?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 (2) TMI 568 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355147</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on angles, channels and joists used in fabrication of conveyor gallery, gas cleaning plant, hopper, EOT crane and related support structures inside the factory was held admissible. Applying the user test, the steel items were treated as parts, components or accessories of capital goods because they were used in fabrication of supporting structures for machinery within the factory. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate supported item-wise use of the materials, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary view was not accepted on these facts. The disputed steel items were therefore eligible for credit, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:30:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 568 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355147</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on angles, channels and joists used in fabrication of conveyor gallery, gas cleaning plant, hopper, EOT crane and related support structures inside the factory was held admissible. Applying the user test, the steel items were treated as parts, components or accessories of capital goods because they were used in fabrication of supporting structures for machinery within the factory. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate supported item-wise use of the materials, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary view was not accepted on these facts. The disputed steel items were therefore eligible for credit, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>