<?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 (7) TMI 521 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424966</link>
    <description>Capital goods Cenvat credit could not be denied under Rule 6(4) where the finished goods were otherwise dutiable and the exemption applied only to clearances made for a specified project. As the capital goods were not used exclusively for exempted goods or exempted services, Rule 6(4) was held inapplicable. The demand based on alleged inadmissible credit was therefore unsustainable, and the credit was rightly taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 521 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424966</link>
      <description>Capital goods Cenvat credit could not be denied under Rule 6(4) where the finished goods were otherwise dutiable and the exemption applied only to clearances made for a specified project. As the capital goods were not used exclusively for exempted goods or exempted services, Rule 6(4) was held inapplicable. The demand based on alleged inadmissible credit was therefore unsustainable, and the credit was rightly taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>