<?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>2000 (7) TMI 359 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93783</link>
    <description>Duty paid on battery cells used in television remote control units was held eligible for Modvat credit because the remote control unit itself was treated as a dutiable excisable product. Its character as an accessory or component did not defeat credit entitlement, and whether the television could function without it was considered irrelevant. The operative test was that the product in which the battery cells were used had been cleared on payment of duty, so credit was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 359 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93783</link>
      <description>Duty paid on battery cells used in television remote control units was held eligible for Modvat credit because the remote control unit itself was treated as a dutiable excisable product. Its character as an accessory or component did not defeat credit entitlement, and whether the television could function without it was considered irrelevant. The operative test was that the product in which the battery cells were used had been cleared on payment of duty, so credit was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>