<?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 (9) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89873</link>
    <description>M.S. plates and channels used for structural work and civil construction in a sugar factory expansion were held outside the defined scope of &quot;capital goods&quot; under Rule 57Q, because they were not shown to function as machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools, appliances, or their components, spare parts or accessories used for producing or processing goods. Modvat credit was therefore not admissible. The wrongly availed credit attracted penalty, but the penalty was moderated because the dispute turned on interpretation of the capital goods provision and the original amount was considered excessive on the facts; it was reduced substantially.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89873</link>
      <description>M.S. plates and channels used for structural work and civil construction in a sugar factory expansion were held outside the defined scope of &quot;capital goods&quot; under Rule 57Q, because they were not shown to function as machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools, appliances, or their components, spare parts or accessories used for producing or processing goods. Modvat credit was therefore not admissible. The wrongly availed credit attracted penalty, but the penalty was moderated because the dispute turned on interpretation of the capital goods provision and the original amount was considered excessive on the facts; it was reduced substantially.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>