<?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>1999 (9) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92425</link>
    <description>Modvat credit claims for post-preparatory textile machines, including speed frames and parts, were not finally decided on merits because the Tribunal had already treated similar issues as requiring reconsideration; the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. Credit claims for preparatory machines such as carding and combing machines, and their parts, also depended on whether cotton carded or combed was marketable as goods. As that marketability question required fresh examination and had likewise been remitted in a similar matter, this issue was also sent back for fresh adjudication. The appellate orders were set aside and the original authorities were directed to pass speaking orders after a fresh hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:40:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92425</link>
      <description>Modvat credit claims for post-preparatory textile machines, including speed frames and parts, were not finally decided on merits because the Tribunal had already treated similar issues as requiring reconsideration; the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. Credit claims for preparatory machines such as carding and combing machines, and their parts, also depended on whether cotton carded or combed was marketable as goods. As that marketability question required fresh examination and had likewise been remitted in a similar matter, this issue was also sent back for fresh adjudication. The appellate orders were set aside and the original authorities were directed to pass speaking orders after a fresh hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>