https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91892 Rule 57Q on Modvat credit for capital goods had to be interpreted in its own context, and the wider definition of "machine, machinery, plant etc." in Note 5 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act could not control that provision. The tariff note operated in the distinct sphere of classification and duty, while the dispute concerned eligibility for capital goods credit. The Revenue's reliance on a precedent dealing with inputs was held inapplicable, and the matter was treated as covered by the Larger Bench ruling in Jawahar Mills. Modvat credit on the capital goods was therefore admissible, with the Revenue's appeals dismissed and the assessees granted consequential relief. en-us Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:54:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91892 Rule 57Q on Modvat credit for capital goods had to be interpreted in its own context, and the wider definition of "machine, machinery, plant etc." in Note 5 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act could not control that provision. The tariff note operated in the distinct sphere of classification and duty, while the dispute concerned eligibility for capital goods credit. The Revenue's reliance on a precedent dealing with inputs was held inapplicable, and the matter was treated as covered by the Larger Bench ruling in Jawahar Mills. Modvat credit on the capital goods was therefore admissible, with the Revenue's appeals dismissed and the assessees granted consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91892