Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the disputed MODVAT credit claimed on the goods treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The dispute related to the period November 1994 to December 1995. The goods in question were claimed as capital goods and the appellate authority had examined their manner of use in the factory. The Board's circular was treated as of prima facie no significance because the controversy turned on whether the goods fell within the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q as applicable during the material period. On a prima facie appraisal of the use of the items, the goods were found capable of being brought within the definition of capital goods.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.