<?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 332 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116729</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was examined for electrodes, asbestos packing, P.M. shafts and trash plates. Credit on electrodes was found inadmissible because an earlier Tribunal ruling had already rejected credit on the same item, so that disallowance remained. Credit on asbestos packing was allowed because the item had been declared and, in any event, the Larger Bench view supported admissibility even where declaration was not filed after the relevant amendments and Board circulars. Credit on P.M. shafts and trash plates was also allowed because they were treated as components or accessories of specified mill machinery, and such parts were covered when the machinery itself qualified under the rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:13:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 332 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116729</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was examined for electrodes, asbestos packing, P.M. shafts and trash plates. Credit on electrodes was found inadmissible because an earlier Tribunal ruling had already rejected credit on the same item, so that disallowance remained. Credit on asbestos packing was allowed because the item had been declared and, in any event, the Larger Bench view supported admissibility even where declaration was not filed after the relevant amendments and Board circulars. Credit on P.M. shafts and trash plates was also allowed because they were treated as components or accessories of specified mill machinery, and such parts were covered when the machinery itself qualified under the rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>