<?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 (12) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88285</link>
    <description>Prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit on capital goods was accepted for refractories, as they were specifically covered as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The objection that the Bill of Entry stood in the name of the registered office was treated as untenable at this stage, and the challenge based on civil structures was not regarded as a strong ground to refuse relief. The claim relating to goods used in quarrying limestone was considered arguable, with the distinction between Rule 57A and Rule 57Q treated as material. Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs, and recovery of the balance was stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88285</link>
      <description>Prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit on capital goods was accepted for refractories, as they were specifically covered as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The objection that the Bill of Entry stood in the name of the registered office was treated as untenable at this stage, and the challenge based on civil structures was not regarded as a strong ground to refuse relief. The claim relating to goods used in quarrying limestone was considered arguable, with the distinction between Rule 57A and Rule 57Q treated as material. Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs, and recovery of the balance was stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>