https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166624 The Supreme Court examined whether the earlier view treating Modvat and Cenvat as materially different justified denial of credit on explosives, lubricating oil, welding electrodes and crushers used in limestone mining for cement manufacture. It compared the definitions of "input" and "capital goods" across the successive regimes and noted their substantial overlap in covering goods used in or in relation to manufacture, including inputs used for intermediate products by a job worker under the later Cenvat rules. Because the earlier observation that the two schemes were distinct and that the prior ratio did not apply required reconsideration, the correctness of that view was referred to a Larger Bench. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166624 The Supreme Court examined whether the earlier view treating Modvat and Cenvat as materially different justified denial of credit on explosives, lubricating oil, welding electrodes and crushers used in limestone mining for cement manufacture. It compared the definitions of "input" and "capital goods" across the successive regimes and noted their substantial overlap in covering goods used in or in relation to manufacture, including inputs used for intermediate products by a job worker under the later Cenvat rules. Because the earlier observation that the two schemes were distinct and that the prior ratio did not apply required reconsideration, the correctness of that view was referred to a Larger Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166624