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 Modvat credit was admissible on the disputed capital goods used in the manufacture of cotton yarn, and whether the later notification operated retrospectively so as to permit credit for the relevant period.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the use of the goods in the spinning process and on the scope of Rule 57Q for the period prior to 21-10-1994. Credit on machinery used for obtaining carded/combed cotton was held to be outside the benefit available for that period, and the notification issued on 21-10-1994 was treated as not retrospective. Goods used in post-carding operations stood on a different footing and were treated as eligible for credit.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible for the carding machine and spare parts of blow room for the pre-notification period, but credit was admissible for the remaining items used in post-carding operations.