<?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>2026 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787345</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was held admissible on locomotive engines, locomotive parts and spare parts used within the factory to haul torpedo ladle cars carrying molten metal in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal treated the locomotive as a special-purpose machine and an accessory to capital goods because it enabled movement of molten metal from the blast furnace to the steel melting shop and other in-factory locations, where manual handling was impracticable due to weight and temperature. It held that such use was directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and that denying credit would be inconsistent with the wider CENVAT scheme. Accordingly, the credit claim was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 08:42:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787345</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was held admissible on locomotive engines, locomotive parts and spare parts used within the factory to haul torpedo ladle cars carrying molten metal in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal treated the locomotive as a special-purpose machine and an accessory to capital goods because it enabled movement of molten metal from the blast furnace to the steel melting shop and other in-factory locations, where manual handling was impracticable due to weight and temperature. It held that such use was directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and that denying credit would be inconsistent with the wider CENVAT scheme. Accordingly, the credit claim was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>