<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1139 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447455</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible for housekeeping, catering, interior decoration and garden maintenance services used in the manufacturing plant because they had a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture and factory operations under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Credit was also accepted for services relating to guest house, employee township, construction, repairs and allied upkeep within the factory premises, as these facilities supported essential business functioning rather than personal use. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable where returns were regularly filed and no suppression with intent to evade duty was shown, so the demand could not be sustained on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:00:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=737013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1139 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447455</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible for housekeeping, catering, interior decoration and garden maintenance services used in the manufacturing plant because they had a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture and factory operations under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Credit was also accepted for services relating to guest house, employee township, construction, repairs and allied upkeep within the factory premises, as these facilities supported essential business functioning rather than personal use. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable where returns were regularly filed and no suppression with intent to evade duty was shown, so the demand could not be sustained on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>