<?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 (8) TMI 1082 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104582</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on a computer used as an aid in preparing drawings and designs for finished products was treated as admissible under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts was applied as binding because it had not been shown to be reversed or stayed by a higher forum, and a subordinate adjudicating or appellate authority could not disregard that precedent. Credit was therefore allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:23:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1082 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104582</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on a computer used as an aid in preparing drawings and designs for finished products was treated as admissible under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts was applied as binding because it had not been shown to be reversed or stayed by a higher forum, and a subordinate adjudicating or appellate authority could not disregard that precedent. Credit was therefore allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>