<?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>2009 (11) TMI 302 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76793</link>
    <description>Rule 57A permitted the Government to specify eligible inputs for Modvat credit and to exclude particular items by notification. Rule 57B, although it referred to fuel and electricity generation and contained a non obstante clause, remained confined to inputs covered by a Rule 57A notification. Because the relevant notification expressly excluded high speed diesel, the input was not eligible for credit even when used to generate electricity for captive consumption in the factory. The note distinguishes the earlier Supreme Court ruling on the basis that it did not consider an express exclusion in a notification and arose under the unamended rule structure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 302 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76793</link>
      <description>Rule 57A permitted the Government to specify eligible inputs for Modvat credit and to exclude particular items by notification. Rule 57B, although it referred to fuel and electricity generation and contained a non obstante clause, remained confined to inputs covered by a Rule 57A notification. Because the relevant notification expressly excluded high speed diesel, the input was not eligible for credit even when used to generate electricity for captive consumption in the factory. The note distinguishes the earlier Supreme Court ruling on the basis that it did not consider an express exclusion in a notification and arose under the unamended rule structure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>