<?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 (8) TMI 396 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93044</link>
    <description>Squirrel jet nozzles were held not to qualify as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(1) because the explanation to Rule 57Q(1)(a) excluded them from the capital goods definition. The adjudicating and appellate authorities&#039; concurrent findings were accepted, and no illegality or invalidity in those findings was shown. As a result, the denial of Modvat credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:34:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 396 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93044</link>
      <description>Squirrel jet nozzles were held not to qualify as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(1) because the explanation to Rule 57Q(1)(a) excluded them from the capital goods definition. The adjudicating and appellate authorities&#039; concurrent findings were accepted, and no illegality or invalidity in those findings was shown. As a result, the denial of Modvat credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>