<?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 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115991</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on parts of a water treatment plant and equipment used to purify bore water for shampoo manufacture, because water was considered essential to the production process and such equipment was an integral manufacturing adjunct. Modvat credit was also treated as admissible on moulds used for jars and caps, since permission for removal to job workers and return within the stipulated period had been granted by the Assistant Commissioner, defeating the objection based on Rule 57S(5). The analysis concludes that denial of credit on both categories of goods was not justified on the stated grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:27:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115991</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on parts of a water treatment plant and equipment used to purify bore water for shampoo manufacture, because water was considered essential to the production process and such equipment was an integral manufacturing adjunct. Modvat credit was also treated as admissible on moulds used for jars and caps, since permission for removal to job workers and return within the stipulated period had been granted by the Assistant Commissioner, defeating the objection based on Rule 57S(5). The analysis concludes that denial of credit on both categories of goods was not justified on the stated grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>