<?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>2009 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33376</link>
    <description>Erection and commissioning services used for machines sold as complete, erected and commissioned units were treated as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the service charges formed part of the transaction value and the activity at the buyer&#039;s premises was incidental to and in continuation of manufacture. The rule was read as requiring use directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture, not confinement of the service to factory premises, so Cenvat credit was admissible. Once that substantive credit issue was accepted, the proposed enhancement of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not survive and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33376</link>
      <description>Erection and commissioning services used for machines sold as complete, erected and commissioned units were treated as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the service charges formed part of the transaction value and the activity at the buyer&#039;s premises was incidental to and in continuation of manufacture. The rule was read as requiring use directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture, not confinement of the service to factory premises, so Cenvat credit was admissible. Once that substantive credit issue was accepted, the proposed enhancement of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not survive and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>