<?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>1998 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88590</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was examined in relation to chassis, engine and other components used to assemble a mobile bulk explosives delivery truck. The text states that capital goods credit applies to plant, machinery, tools, apparatus and appliances installed in a factory, and that the statutory concept of factory under the Central Excise Act presupposes fixed premises where excisable goods are manufactured. On that basis, a movable unit could not be treated as a factory, so credit on the chassis and conveyance-linked parts was not admissible. The text also notes, as an alternative point, that duty liability could arise if the assembled unit itself were treated as excisable goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:58:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88590</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was examined in relation to chassis, engine and other components used to assemble a mobile bulk explosives delivery truck. The text states that capital goods credit applies to plant, machinery, tools, apparatus and appliances installed in a factory, and that the statutory concept of factory under the Central Excise Act presupposes fixed premises where excisable goods are manufactured. On that basis, a movable unit could not be treated as a factory, so credit on the chassis and conveyance-linked parts was not admissible. The text also notes, as an alternative point, that duty liability could arise if the assembled unit itself were treated as excisable goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>