<?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>2009 (4) TMI 526 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211962</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on capital goods used to manufacture sliver/combed cotton, an intermediate product captively consumed in making dutiable cotton yarn, could not be denied merely because the intermediate heading was excluded under Rule 57Q. The decisive factor was that the intermediate product had no independent marketability or separate commercial existence, and excisability depends on goods being marketable and capable of sale. As the final product was cleared on payment of duty and the capital goods were used in the course of that dutiable manufacture, credit remained admissible. The Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 526 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211962</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on capital goods used to manufacture sliver/combed cotton, an intermediate product captively consumed in making dutiable cotton yarn, could not be denied merely because the intermediate heading was excluded under Rule 57Q. The decisive factor was that the intermediate product had no independent marketability or separate commercial existence, and excisability depends on goods being marketable and capable of sale. As the final product was cleared on payment of duty and the capital goods were used in the course of that dutiable manufacture, credit remained admissible. The Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>