<?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 (4) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88846</link>
    <description>Hydraulic truck unloader was treated as a stationary material-handling machine used in the factory for lifting and transporting materials, and was held eligible for credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q. Walkway platform ladder railing was treated as part of the structure and only an accessory to a staircase, while level gauges and switches were rejected because the invoices and supporting documents did not sufficiently establish admissible supply or identity; credit was denied for those items. The load cells issue turned on unresolved factual and functional questions about use in manufacturing and admissibility as spares or parts, so it was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88846</link>
      <description>Hydraulic truck unloader was treated as a stationary material-handling machine used in the factory for lifting and transporting materials, and was held eligible for credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q. Walkway platform ladder railing was treated as part of the structure and only an accessory to a staircase, while level gauges and switches were rejected because the invoices and supporting documents did not sufficiently establish admissible supply or identity; credit was denied for those items. The load cells issue turned on unresolved factual and functional questions about use in manufacturing and admissibility as spares or parts, so it was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>