<?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 (7) TMI 1112 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200874</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the admissibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes for repair and maintenance was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that welding electrodes used in the manufacturing process are considered as inputs, rendering the Revenue&#039;s question irrelevant. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that structural steel items used for fabricating support structures for capital goods qualify as parts of relevant machines under the definition of &#039;Capital Goods,&#039; entitling the assessee to Cenvat credit. The decision was supported by the application of the &quot;user test&quot; to the specific facts, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on established legal precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:08:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1112 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200874</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the admissibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes for repair and maintenance was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that welding electrodes used in the manufacturing process are considered as inputs, rendering the Revenue&#039;s question irrelevant. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that structural steel items used for fabricating support structures for capital goods qualify as parts of relevant machines under the definition of &#039;Capital Goods,&#039; entitling the assessee to Cenvat credit. The decision was supported by the application of the &quot;user test&quot; to the specific facts, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on established legal precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>