<?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>2002 (1) TMI 1158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105620</link>
    <description>Items used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, including ancillary functions such as cooling, polishing, sample preparation, supply connection, and nozzle holding, were treated as capital goods where the statutory definition under Rule 57-Q was satisfied; the Revenue challenge on those items failed. Clean Flow, used to clean, soften, and degrease cooling water, was treated as an input eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57-A; credit was allowed. Magnesia Carbon Bricks, used as refractory lining, were also considered under Rule 57-A read with Rule 57-D(2), but inadequate reasons below required de novo consideration, so that issue was remanded for a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105620</link>
      <description>Items used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, including ancillary functions such as cooling, polishing, sample preparation, supply connection, and nozzle holding, were treated as capital goods where the statutory definition under Rule 57-Q was satisfied; the Revenue challenge on those items failed. Clean Flow, used to clean, soften, and degrease cooling water, was treated as an input eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57-A; credit was allowed. Magnesia Carbon Bricks, used as refractory lining, were also considered under Rule 57-A read with Rule 57-D(2), but inadequate reasons below required de novo consideration, so that issue was remanded for a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>