<?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 (5) TMI 480 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94878</link>
    <description>A machine used to emboss serial numbers on parts of textile machinery was treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q because embossing was a processing activity undertaken by the manufacturer and manufacture includes incidental or ancillary processes. The machine was therefore used in connection with processing of the goods, bringing it within the scope of capital goods. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and relief followed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:37:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 480 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94878</link>
      <description>A machine used to emboss serial numbers on parts of textile machinery was treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q because embossing was a processing activity undertaken by the manufacturer and manufacture includes incidental or ancillary processes. The machine was therefore used in connection with processing of the goods, bringing it within the scope of capital goods. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and relief followed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>