<?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 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359741</link>
    <description>Structures permanently embedded in earth do not qualify as capital goods for CENVAT credit because they do not retain the character of excisable goods. Goods such as angles, joists, beams, bars and plates used to fabricate civil foundations or supporting structures are likewise not admissible as inputs for capital goods or in relation to the final products, as they lack the required nexus with manufacture under the rules. The CENVAT (Amendment) Rules, 2009 were held to be prospective and not clarificatory or retrospective, since the amending text did not clearly indicate any intention to remove ambiguity or alter prior entitlement. The assessees succeeded and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:17:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359741</link>
      <description>Structures permanently embedded in earth do not qualify as capital goods for CENVAT credit because they do not retain the character of excisable goods. Goods such as angles, joists, beams, bars and plates used to fabricate civil foundations or supporting structures are likewise not admissible as inputs for capital goods or in relation to the final products, as they lack the required nexus with manufacture under the rules. The CENVAT (Amendment) Rules, 2009 were held to be prospective and not clarificatory or retrospective, since the amending text did not clearly indicate any intention to remove ambiguity or alter prior entitlement. The assessees succeeded and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>