<?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 573 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95526</link>
    <description>Spot welding electrodes were held to qualify as &quot;input&quot; for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the Tribunal followed its earlier Division Bench rulings and treated the electrodes as not excluded by the Explanation to that rule. The contrary Single Member view was declined, and the Division Bench interpretation was applied. Modvat credit was therefore available to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:11:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 573 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95526</link>
      <description>Spot welding electrodes were held to qualify as &quot;input&quot; for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the Tribunal followed its earlier Division Bench rulings and treated the electrodes as not excluded by the Explanation to that rule. The contrary Single Member view was declined, and the Division Bench interpretation was applied. Modvat credit was therefore available to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>