<?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>2010 (4) TMI 411 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77762</link>
    <description>Oxygen and acetylene gases used for cutting, repairing, installation and maintenance of plant and machinery were not treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for the relevant period. The amended Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 16-3-1995 could not be applied retrospectively because the period in dispute predated its effective date. The use of the gases was found to be for keeping the plant operational, not for use in the actual process of manufacture of cement, so the earlier capital goods rulings based on manufacture-related use were distinguished. Modvat credit was therefore held not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 411 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77762</link>
      <description>Oxygen and acetylene gases used for cutting, repairing, installation and maintenance of plant and machinery were not treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for the relevant period. The amended Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 16-3-1995 could not be applied retrospectively because the period in dispute predated its effective date. The use of the gases was found to be for keeping the plant operational, not for use in the actual process of manufacture of cement, so the earlier capital goods rulings based on manufacture-related use were distinguished. Modvat credit was therefore held not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>