<?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 (10) TMI 314 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116637</link>
    <description>After the 1-3-1997 recast of Rule 57Q, eligibility for capital goods credit depended on tariff classification and the specified entries in the rule, not merely on use in the factory. A computer hardware system classified under heading 84.71 did not fall within the entries covered by Rule 57Q for the relevant period, so capital goods credit was not admissible. The earlier Supreme Court ruling relied on by the lower authority was confined to an earlier period before the recast and did not govern the period in dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:24:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 314 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116637</link>
      <description>After the 1-3-1997 recast of Rule 57Q, eligibility for capital goods credit depended on tariff classification and the specified entries in the rule, not merely on use in the factory. A computer hardware system classified under heading 84.71 did not fall within the entries covered by Rule 57Q for the relevant period, so capital goods credit was not admissible. The earlier Supreme Court ruling relied on by the lower authority was confined to an earlier period before the recast and did not govern the period in dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>