<?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>2019 (6) TMI 199 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381122</link>
    <description>Steel plates, channels, angles and similar allied goods used to fabricate structures supporting capital goods, or to modify and support plant and machinery, remained eligible as Cenvat inputs for the pre-07.07.2009 period. The unamended Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applied to the 2004-05 and 2005-06 assessment years, and the later exclusion inserted by amendment was treated as prospective only, not a retrospective bar. The 2012 circulars were considered relevant to the changed statutory position and not to the disputed period. The decision in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. was distinguished because it turned on failure to prove actual use of the items. Credit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 199 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381122</link>
      <description>Steel plates, channels, angles and similar allied goods used to fabricate structures supporting capital goods, or to modify and support plant and machinery, remained eligible as Cenvat inputs for the pre-07.07.2009 period. The unamended Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applied to the 2004-05 and 2005-06 assessment years, and the later exclusion inserted by amendment was treated as prospective only, not a retrospective bar. The 2012 circulars were considered relevant to the changed statutory position and not to the disputed period. The decision in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. was distinguished because it turned on failure to prove actual use of the items. Credit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>