<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1240 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466783</link>
    <description>M.S. plates and sections used only for repair and maintenance of machinery were held ineligible for Cenvat credit because their use as capital goods, components, parts, spares or accessories was not specifically established. The record did not identify the particular machinery in which the items were used, and their general utility across applications was insufficient to show admissible credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The earlier Modvat authorities relied on were not treated as controlling for the relevant period. On penalty, the dispute involved differing interpretations and the penalty was not restored. The Department succeeded on credit, while the assessee succeeded on penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:59:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1240 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466783</link>
      <description>M.S. plates and sections used only for repair and maintenance of machinery were held ineligible for Cenvat credit because their use as capital goods, components, parts, spares or accessories was not specifically established. The record did not identify the particular machinery in which the items were used, and their general utility across applications was insufficient to show admissible credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The earlier Modvat authorities relied on were not treated as controlling for the relevant period. On penalty, the dispute involved differing interpretations and the penalty was not restored. The Department succeeded on credit, while the assessee succeeded on penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>