<?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>2010 (9) TMI 322 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202088</link>
    <description>Rule 57-Q was construed broadly to cover plant, machinery, components, spares and accessories used in the manufacturing process, so parts and accessories of a captive power plant qualified as capital goods for Modvat credit. Applying the user test, the power plant was treated as an integral part of the factory because the electricity generated was essential for sponge iron manufacture, and the transmission of surplus electricity to a sister concern did not, by itself, defeat credit on the capital goods. The distinction drawn from cases involving inputs cleared as electricity was inapplicable because this claim concerned capital goods, not inputs sold as a separate product.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 322 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202088</link>
      <description>Rule 57-Q was construed broadly to cover plant, machinery, components, spares and accessories used in the manufacturing process, so parts and accessories of a captive power plant qualified as capital goods for Modvat credit. Applying the user test, the power plant was treated as an integral part of the factory because the electricity generated was essential for sponge iron manufacture, and the transmission of surplus electricity to a sister concern did not, by itself, defeat credit on the capital goods. The distinction drawn from cases involving inputs cleared as electricity was inapplicable because this claim concerned capital goods, not inputs sold as a separate product.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>