<?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 (9) TMI 694 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114209</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on capital goods used as accessories of a furnace where they were essential to prevent damage to gears during heat treatment and supported the effective functioning of the manufacturing process. An item may qualify as an accessory even if the machine can operate without it, so long as it contributes to effective use; the credit was therefore allowed. Minor omission or defect in the declaration did not bar credit because the rules permitted the Assistant Commissioner to overlook such lapses where duty-paid capital goods were actually used in manufacture, and duty payment and use were not disputed. The procedural objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 12:27:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 694 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114209</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on capital goods used as accessories of a furnace where they were essential to prevent damage to gears during heat treatment and supported the effective functioning of the manufacturing process. An item may qualify as an accessory even if the machine can operate without it, so long as it contributes to effective use; the credit was therefore allowed. Minor omission or defect in the declaration did not bar credit because the rules permitted the Assistant Commissioner to overlook such lapses where duty-paid capital goods were actually used in manufacture, and duty payment and use were not disputed. The procedural objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>