<?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 (5) TMI 344 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78885</link>
    <description>Eligibility under the Compound Levy Scheme turns on strict compliance with the notification terms. The scheme applied only to an independent textile processor undertaking the specified processing on the covered fabrics, and where that basic condition was not met, benefit was unavailable regardless of the investment question. Investment in plant and machinery had to be assessed under the scheme notification and the clarificatory accounting standard, so 1997 industrial guidelines under a different regime could not be used to narrow the valuation. Installed items such as DG sets, transformers and pollution control equipment formed part of plant and machinery unless expressly excluded, and the prescribed investment limit was exceeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:35:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 344 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78885</link>
      <description>Eligibility under the Compound Levy Scheme turns on strict compliance with the notification terms. The scheme applied only to an independent textile processor undertaking the specified processing on the covered fabrics, and where that basic condition was not met, benefit was unavailable regardless of the investment question. Investment in plant and machinery had to be assessed under the scheme notification and the clarificatory accounting standard, so 1997 industrial guidelines under a different regime could not be used to narrow the valuation. Installed items such as DG sets, transformers and pollution control equipment formed part of plant and machinery unless expressly excluded, and the prescribed investment limit was exceeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>