<?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 (7) TMI 310 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363002</link>
    <description>Steel items used to fabricate support structures for machinery and capital goods were treated as components or parts under the user test, bringing them within the ambit of capital goods for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case on the same issue and found no reason to disturb the appellate order, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and credit was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2018 06:44:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 310 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363002</link>
      <description>Steel items used to fabricate support structures for machinery and capital goods were treated as components or parts under the user test, bringing them within the ambit of capital goods for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case on the same issue and found no reason to disturb the appellate order, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and credit was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>