<?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 (5) TMI 569 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118711</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was not admissible for an alarm annunciator classified under Heading 85.31 because, for the relevant period, capital goods falling under that heading were excluded from the eligible category. Eligibility turned on the tariff classification of the capital goods, not on their use in manufacture of the final product. The denial of credit was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:11:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 569 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118711</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was not admissible for an alarm annunciator classified under Heading 85.31 because, for the relevant period, capital goods falling under that heading were excluded from the eligible category. Eligibility turned on the tariff classification of the capital goods, not on their use in manufacture of the final product. The denial of credit was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>