<?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 485 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116249</link>
    <description>A dust collector attached to a double spindle buffing machine was treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q because it operated in conjunction with the machine and collected dust generated in the manufacturing process. The undisputed factual position was that the equipment was physically attached to the machine and used during buffing and polishing of dials. As capital goods for the relevant period included plant, machinery and parts used in manufacture or processing, the dust collector was regarded as part of the machine and satisfied the statutory requirement. Modvat credit was therefore admissible and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 485 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116249</link>
      <description>A dust collector attached to a double spindle buffing machine was treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q because it operated in conjunction with the machine and collected dust generated in the manufacturing process. The undisputed factual position was that the equipment was physically attached to the machine and used during buffing and polishing of dials. As capital goods for the relevant period included plant, machinery and parts used in manufacture or processing, the dust collector was regarded as part of the machine and satisfied the statutory requirement. Modvat credit was therefore admissible and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>