https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104721 Rule 57Q was interpreted to mean that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.) on 23-7-96 did not apply retrospectively to the May-June 1996 period, so entitlement for that period had to be tested under the pre-amendment position. Goods used as parts of a strapping machine were treated as capital goods because they were used in packing finished products, and packing was regarded as part of manufacture where it renders goods marketable. Goods used for supplying electricity to the manufacturing plant were also recognised as capital goods. On those grounds, Modvat credit was held admissible. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:14:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104721 Rule 57Q was interpreted to mean that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.) on 23-7-96 did not apply retrospectively to the May-June 1996 period, so entitlement for that period had to be tested under the pre-amendment position. Goods used as parts of a strapping machine were treated as capital goods because they were used in packing finished products, and packing was regarded as part of manufacture where it renders goods marketable. Goods used for supplying electricity to the manufacturing plant were also recognised as capital goods. On those grounds, Modvat credit was held admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104721