<?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>1995 (11) TMI 151 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84706</link>
    <description>Dry cell batteries used to operate the remote control unit supplied with VCP/VCR/television sets were treated as eligible inputs for Modvat credit where the batteries formed part of the chain of use making the final product functional as cleared. The analysis emphasised that the remote control facility was part of the manufactured product, and that sets cleared with and without such facility were distinct for tariff purposes. The accessory character of the remote control did not defeat credit because the relevant test was whether the batteries were used in or in relation to manufacture and completion of the final product. Credit was subject to verification that the batteries were supplied with the equipment and their cost was included in the price.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 151 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84706</link>
      <description>Dry cell batteries used to operate the remote control unit supplied with VCP/VCR/television sets were treated as eligible inputs for Modvat credit where the batteries formed part of the chain of use making the final product functional as cleared. The analysis emphasised that the remote control facility was part of the manufactured product, and that sets cleared with and without such facility were distinct for tariff purposes. The accessory character of the remote control did not defeat credit because the relevant test was whether the batteries were used in or in relation to manufacture and completion of the final product. Credit was subject to verification that the batteries were supplied with the equipment and their cost was included in the price.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>