<?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 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118783</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was admissible on drill rods, pipes, drill bits and similar accessories purchased from the open market and supplied with drilling rigs because Rule 57A(i)(e) covered accessories cleared along with the final product where their value was included in the assessable value. The fact that the items were not integral parts of the rigs did not by itself defeat credit eligibility. Since the accessories were supplied with the rigs and their value formed part of the final product&#039;s assessable value, the duty paid on those goods fell within the rule. The denial of credit was therefore incorrect, and consequential relief followed on the credit issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:40:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118783</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was admissible on drill rods, pipes, drill bits and similar accessories purchased from the open market and supplied with drilling rigs because Rule 57A(i)(e) covered accessories cleared along with the final product where their value was included in the assessable value. The fact that the items were not integral parts of the rigs did not by itself defeat credit eligibility. Since the accessories were supplied with the rigs and their value formed part of the final product&#039;s assessable value, the duty paid on those goods fell within the rule. The denial of credit was therefore incorrect, and consequential relief followed on the credit issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>