https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126839 The judge rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that during the relevant period, compressors were not excluded from the definition of capital goods. The judge recalled the previous order, taking into account the period involved in the appeal, and found no merit in the Revenue's argument based on Tribunal decisions supporting compressors as eligible capital goods for modvat purposes. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the exclusion of refrigerating compressors from the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:57:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126839 The judge rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that during the relevant period, compressors were not excluded from the definition of capital goods. The judge recalled the previous order, taking into account the period involved in the appeal, and found no merit in the Revenue's argument based on Tribunal decisions supporting compressors as eligible capital goods for modvat purposes. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the exclusion of refrigerating compressors from the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126839