<?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 (7) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85375</link>
    <description>Electrical overhead travelling cranes used inside the production hall to move and assemble parts for manufacture were treated as machinery eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q because the decisive test was their functional use in relation to production or processing of goods. Their admissibility was not excluded merely because cranes were not specifically named earlier under Heading 84.26; the later specific inclusion supported the position but was not the sole basis. By contrast, cranes used outside the manufacturing area for handling finished goods would not satisfy the rule. On the facts found, the cranes performed an essential production function and credit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:02:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85375</link>
      <description>Electrical overhead travelling cranes used inside the production hall to move and assemble parts for manufacture were treated as machinery eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q because the decisive test was their functional use in relation to production or processing of goods. Their admissibility was not excluded merely because cranes were not specifically named earlier under Heading 84.26; the later specific inclusion supported the position but was not the sole basis. By contrast, cranes used outside the manufacturing area for handling finished goods would not satisfy the rule. On the facts found, the cranes performed an essential production function and credit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>