<?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 (7) TMI 1405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383709</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the denial of cenvat credit on civil works but setting aside the denial for other services like Renovation, Maintenance, Repair, Fabrication, and Dismantling between April 2011 to June 2017. The Tribunal emphasized that activities like Fabrication, Erection, and Commissioning are covered under input services if meant for Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, or Modernisation but not for erecting civil structures or support structures for machinery. The Commissioner&#039;s doubt regarding the purpose of fabrication work was deemed unreasonable, leading to the partial setting aside of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:21:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383709</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the denial of cenvat credit on civil works but setting aside the denial for other services like Renovation, Maintenance, Repair, Fabrication, and Dismantling between April 2011 to June 2017. The Tribunal emphasized that activities like Fabrication, Erection, and Commissioning are covered under input services if meant for Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, or Modernisation but not for erecting civil structures or support structures for machinery. The Commissioner&#039;s doubt regarding the purpose of fabrication work was deemed unreasonable, leading to the partial setting aside of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>