<?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 (6) TMI 435 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116363</link>
    <description>Equipment used to maintain manufacturing conditions and process integrity can qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q when it has a direct functional nexus with manufacture. Decofoam and the Air Handling Unit were treated as capital goods because they created a dust-free environment necessary for production, while the Dust Collector qualified as it reduced dust in the welding area and supported manufacture of colour picture tubes. The Liquid Chiller also qualified because it supplied chilled water for process conditions and process water. A contrary view on humidification and air-conditioning equipment was rejected in favour of the later Larger Bench ruling upheld by the Apex Court, and the receipt-date objection failed because the goods had been received before the relevant exclusion date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:11:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 435 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116363</link>
      <description>Equipment used to maintain manufacturing conditions and process integrity can qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q when it has a direct functional nexus with manufacture. Decofoam and the Air Handling Unit were treated as capital goods because they created a dust-free environment necessary for production, while the Dust Collector qualified as it reduced dust in the welding area and supported manufacture of colour picture tubes. The Liquid Chiller also qualified because it supplied chilled water for process conditions and process water. A contrary view on humidification and air-conditioning equipment was rejected in favour of the later Larger Bench ruling upheld by the Apex Court, and the receipt-date objection failed because the goods had been received before the relevant exclusion date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>