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 credit was admissible on copper/aluminium conductors, impeller and bulldozer as capital goods under the relevant explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: The use of all three items in the factory was explained as being integrally connected with the manufacturing process. The Revenue did not controvert or rebut that explanation and did not dispute that the items were used within the factory. On the definition of capital goods as it stood during the relevant period, copper/aluminium conductors were covered, impellers were treated as part of machinery falling within the explanation to the rule, and bulldozers were held admissible as raw material handling equipment.
Conclusion: Credit on all three items was admissible as capital goods, and the Revenue's challenge failed.