<?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>2005 (3) TMI 554 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115129</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was held inadmissible because the machine was not used in the manufacture of goods; it was merely dismantled to study its parts and components for making similar machines. That activity did not satisfy the statutory requirement of use as capital goods in manufacture, so denial of credit was upheld. The penalty, however, was considered excessive on the facts and was reduced to Rs. 25,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 10:45:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 554 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115129</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was held inadmissible because the machine was not used in the manufacture of goods; it was merely dismantled to study its parts and components for making similar machines. That activity did not satisfy the statutory requirement of use as capital goods in manufacture, so denial of credit was upheld. The penalty, however, was considered excessive on the facts and was reduced to Rs. 25,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>