<?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>2004 (1) TMI 596 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113320</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on welding electrodes used for repairing machinery was held admissible, because the electrodes became embedded in and integrally joined to the machinery and were treated as part of the machinery. Applying the same reasoning, they were considered capital goods under Rule 57Q even for January 2001 to February 2001. The earlier allowance of credit for the post-1-3-2001 period, based on identical use, was not challenged by cross appeal, and the denial for the earlier period was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 18:06:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 596 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113320</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on welding electrodes used for repairing machinery was held admissible, because the electrodes became embedded in and integrally joined to the machinery and were treated as part of the machinery. Applying the same reasoning, they were considered capital goods under Rule 57Q even for January 2001 to February 2001. The earlier allowance of credit for the post-1-3-2001 period, based on identical use, was not challenged by cross appeal, and the denial for the earlier period was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>