https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116020 Cenvat credit on parts of moulds depended on whether the moulds were moulds for metal other than ingot moulds falling under Heading 84.80; if so classified, the parts would not be excluded from the capital goods restriction and credit could be admissible. Because the record did not establish the nature of the moulds, the issue required factual verification by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. Credit on parts of V.C.R. was held inadmissible because V.C.R. was not a specified heading or eligible machinery under the capital goods table, and Rule 57B(2) could not extend credit to parts of a non-specified machine merely because they were used in manufacture. en-us Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:37:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116020 Cenvat credit on parts of moulds depended on whether the moulds were moulds for metal other than ingot moulds falling under Heading 84.80; if so classified, the parts would not be excluded from the capital goods restriction and credit could be admissible. Because the record did not establish the nature of the moulds, the issue required factual verification by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. Credit on parts of V.C.R. was held inadmissible because V.C.R. was not a specified heading or eligible machinery under the capital goods table, and Rule 57B(2) could not extend credit to parts of a non-specified machine merely because they were used in manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116020