<?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 (3) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90597</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for a diesel engine used with an alternator to generate captive electricity depended on whether the equipment was integral to the manufacturing process and used in or in relation to manufacture. The text states that eligibility could not be determined by a broad reference to Rule 57S or by treating later enlargement of the scheme as governing earlier receipts. The key test was whether the equipment was essential to manufacture and whether production could not proceed without it. On that basis, the record was found insufficient for a final determination and the matter had to be re-examined by the lower authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:16:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90597</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for a diesel engine used with an alternator to generate captive electricity depended on whether the equipment was integral to the manufacturing process and used in or in relation to manufacture. The text states that eligibility could not be determined by a broad reference to Rule 57S or by treating later enlargement of the scheme as governing earlier receipts. The key test was whether the equipment was essential to manufacture and whether production could not proceed without it. On that basis, the record was found insufficient for a final determination and the matter had to be re-examined by the lower authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>