<?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>2024 (1) TMI 246 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447847</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that effluent treatment services qualify for CENVAT credit as input services. Revenue argued these services lacked nexus with manufacturing activity since effluent treatment occurs post-production. The tribunal ruled that pollution control compliance is mandatory for industrial units and effluent treatment is essential for overall manufacturing operations. Citing SC precedent in Indian Farmers Fertiliser Coop. Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad, the tribunal found effluent treatment services directly connected to manufacturing process. Revenue&#039;s argument regarding service location beyond place of removal was rejected. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2024 07:37:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 246 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447847</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that effluent treatment services qualify for CENVAT credit as input services. Revenue argued these services lacked nexus with manufacturing activity since effluent treatment occurs post-production. The tribunal ruled that pollution control compliance is mandatory for industrial units and effluent treatment is essential for overall manufacturing operations. Citing SC precedent in Indian Farmers Fertiliser Coop. Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad, the tribunal found effluent treatment services directly connected to manufacturing process. Revenue&#039;s argument regarding service location beyond place of removal was rejected. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>