<?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>1996 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85079</link>
    <description>A Modvat declaration describing &quot;Hydraulic Copy Turning Attachment with or without Power Pack and accessories of all types and sizes&quot; was held wide enough to cover &quot;Hydraulic Tracer Model Hitrace&quot;. The description was read with the product&#039;s technical literature, trade understanding and a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, showing that the item functioned as a hydraulic tracer for copy turning with allied functions within the declared scope. Because the classification under Chapter Heading 8466.00 was not disputed, credit could not be denied merely on the basis of differing trade nomenclature. The disallowance of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:21:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85079</link>
      <description>A Modvat declaration describing &quot;Hydraulic Copy Turning Attachment with or without Power Pack and accessories of all types and sizes&quot; was held wide enough to cover &quot;Hydraulic Tracer Model Hitrace&quot;. The description was read with the product&#039;s technical literature, trade understanding and a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, showing that the item functioned as a hydraulic tracer for copy turning with allied functions within the declared scope. Because the classification under Chapter Heading 8466.00 was not disputed, credit could not be denied merely on the basis of differing trade nomenclature. The disallowance of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>