<?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 (10) TMI 1466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369500</link>
    <description>Cement used to fill mine pits before ore extraction was treated as an input eligible for Cenvat credit because the activity was a mandatory pre-condition under mining regulations and had an indirect but necessary nexus with extraction, which was the relevant manufacturing activity. The exclusion in Rule 2(k) for goods having no relationship whatsoever with manufacture was construed strictly, so cement did not fall within it. Earlier decisions relied on by the department were found inapplicable to the post-amendment position, and the clarificatory circular supported the assessee&#039;s claim. Credit was therefore allowed and the denial was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369500</link>
      <description>Cement used to fill mine pits before ore extraction was treated as an input eligible for Cenvat credit because the activity was a mandatory pre-condition under mining regulations and had an indirect but necessary nexus with extraction, which was the relevant manufacturing activity. The exclusion in Rule 2(k) for goods having no relationship whatsoever with manufacture was construed strictly, so cement did not fall within it. Earlier decisions relied on by the department were found inapplicable to the post-amendment position, and the clarificatory circular supported the assessee&#039;s claim. Credit was therefore allowed and the denial was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>