https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115975 Capital goods used in the manufacture of cotton yarn could not be denied Modvat credit merely because combed/carded cotton emerged as an intermediate product and was not specified as a final product under the capital goods rule. The intermediate product was found to be non-marketable and therefore not excisable, so the machinery was treated as used in producing the dutiable final product, cotton yarn. The proviso to Rule 57R(2) applied only where an excisable intermediate product arose in the course of manufacture. Credit was therefore admissible, and the denial was unjustified. en-us Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:45:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115975 Capital goods used in the manufacture of cotton yarn could not be denied Modvat credit merely because combed/carded cotton emerged as an intermediate product and was not specified as a final product under the capital goods rule. The intermediate product was found to be non-marketable and therefore not excisable, so the machinery was treated as used in producing the dutiable final product, cotton yarn. The proviso to Rule 57R(2) applied only where an excisable intermediate product arose in the course of manufacture. Credit was therefore admissible, and the denial was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115975