<?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 (12) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114898</link>
    <description>Front end loaders used within the factory to handle bagasse and feed it back into the burner for steam generation qualified as material handling equipment under clause (a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q. On that functional use, they fell within the definition of capital goods, so denial of Modvat credit was not justified. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the order allowing credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 10:53:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114898</link>
      <description>Front end loaders used within the factory to handle bagasse and feed it back into the burner for steam generation qualified as material handling equipment under clause (a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q. On that functional use, they fell within the definition of capital goods, so denial of Modvat credit was not justified. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the order allowing credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>