<?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>1997 (5) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87161</link>
    <description>Eligibility to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on item-wise examination of whether each disputed item qualified as capital goods and satisfied the applicable conditions and restrictions. The lower appellate order was found deficient because it granted relief broadly without independently analysing each item against the statutory requirements, despite the record showing that some items related to manufacture or processing of auxiliary products and that later amendment could affect coverage for the relevant period. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration and a reasoned speaking order after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87161</link>
      <description>Eligibility to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on item-wise examination of whether each disputed item qualified as capital goods and satisfied the applicable conditions and restrictions. The lower appellate order was found deficient because it granted relief broadly without independently analysing each item against the statutory requirements, despite the record showing that some items related to manufacture or processing of auxiliary products and that later amendment could affect coverage for the relevant period. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration and a reasoned speaking order after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>