<?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>2008 (11) TMI 528 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125216</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on bucket elevator chain, bucket for elevator and related items used as parts of material handling equipment and an electrostatic precipitator, because such equipment formed part of machinery used in manufacture and its parts fell within capital goods. Credit was also allowed on remaining items used for welding, joining, cutting dies, repairing anode stands and making dies for extrusion, since credit on goods used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery had already been recognised in cited decisions. The assessee&#039;s claim was upheld under Rule 57-Q read with Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:37:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 528 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125216</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on bucket elevator chain, bucket for elevator and related items used as parts of material handling equipment and an electrostatic precipitator, because such equipment formed part of machinery used in manufacture and its parts fell within capital goods. Credit was also allowed on remaining items used for welding, joining, cutting dies, repairing anode stands and making dies for extrusion, since credit on goods used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery had already been recognised in cited decisions. The assessee&#039;s claim was upheld under Rule 57-Q read with Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>