<?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>2022 (1) TMI 760 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417295</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on steel plates used to fabricate storage tanks was treated as admissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because the definition of inputs extends to goods used in or in relation to manufacture and the plates were consumed in the fabrication process. Credit was not denied merely because the goods were received before excise registration or because they were no longer in the same form, and no outer time limit existed under the relevant rules for taking credit during the period in question. The adjudication also could not rest on grounds not set out in the show cause notice. As the credit denial failed on merits, the related claim for interest under Rule 14 also did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 760 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417295</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on steel plates used to fabricate storage tanks was treated as admissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because the definition of inputs extends to goods used in or in relation to manufacture and the plates were consumed in the fabrication process. Credit was not denied merely because the goods were received before excise registration or because they were no longer in the same form, and no outer time limit existed under the relevant rules for taking credit during the period in question. The adjudication also could not rest on grounds not set out in the show cause notice. As the credit denial failed on merits, the related claim for interest under Rule 14 also did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>