<?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 604 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363296</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held unavailable on goods used in erection, commissioning and installation of a captive power plant under a works contract where the contractor had opted for the composition scheme. The decisive point was that the contractor, as the service provider executing the contract, was barred from availing credit on inputs used in that contract, and the recipient could not claim the same credit indirectly. The fact that the contract covered both inputs and capital goods, and that invoices named the recipient as consignee, did not change the position because all goods formed part of the same works contract. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:18:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 604 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363296</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held unavailable on goods used in erection, commissioning and installation of a captive power plant under a works contract where the contractor had opted for the composition scheme. The decisive point was that the contractor, as the service provider executing the contract, was barred from availing credit on inputs used in that contract, and the recipient could not claim the same credit indirectly. The fact that the contract covered both inputs and capital goods, and that invoices named the recipient as consignee, did not change the position because all goods formed part of the same works contract. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>