<?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>1990 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81358</link>
    <description>Rule 57A allowed Modvat credit for plain paper and plain aluminium foils used to make identifiable ready-to-use packaging materials, because packaging materials themselves were treated as eligible inputs; however, printing ink and lamination materials used only to process those materials were not treated as packaging materials and credit was denied for them. Chemicals directly used in biscuit manufacture remained eligible for credit despite being described in abbreviated form in the declaration, because the description defect was only technical and the Department did not dispute the goods&#039; substantive use or eligibility. Credit was therefore sustained for the packaging inputs and direct manufacturing chemicals, but refused for printing and lamination-related inputs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:03:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81358</link>
      <description>Rule 57A allowed Modvat credit for plain paper and plain aluminium foils used to make identifiable ready-to-use packaging materials, because packaging materials themselves were treated as eligible inputs; however, printing ink and lamination materials used only to process those materials were not treated as packaging materials and credit was denied for them. Chemicals directly used in biscuit manufacture remained eligible for credit despite being described in abbreviated form in the declaration, because the description defect was only technical and the Department did not dispute the goods&#039; substantive use or eligibility. Credit was therefore sustained for the packaging inputs and direct manufacturing chemicals, but refused for printing and lamination-related inputs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>