<?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>2003 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109004</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on Centre Column and Bottom Plates used as integral parts of moulds, because moulds and dies were recognised as capital goods under the applicable excise and CENVAT regime. The scheme treated moulds and dies as eligible items before and after the CENVAT Rules, 2001, and no material change in law justified denying credit on the ground that these components formed part of the moulds. Credit was therefore allowed, and the denial was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:42:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109004</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on Centre Column and Bottom Plates used as integral parts of moulds, because moulds and dies were recognised as capital goods under the applicable excise and CENVAT regime. The scheme treated moulds and dies as eligible items before and after the CENVAT Rules, 2001, and no material change in law justified denying credit on the ground that these components formed part of the moulds. Credit was therefore allowed, and the denial was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>