<?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>2001 (2) TMI 762 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99451</link>
    <description>Tools were not eligible for Modvat credit as inputs under Rule 57A because the rule contained its own definition of inputs and its Explanation expressly excluded tools during the relevant period. Exclusion from the capital goods category under Rule 57Q did not by itself create eligibility under Rule 57A, since credit entitlement had to be tested independently under that provision. The assessee&#039;s claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:26:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 762 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99451</link>
      <description>Tools were not eligible for Modvat credit as inputs under Rule 57A because the rule contained its own definition of inputs and its Explanation expressly excluded tools during the relevant period. Exclusion from the capital goods category under Rule 57Q did not by itself create eligibility under Rule 57A, since credit entitlement had to be tested independently under that provision. The assessee&#039;s claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>