<?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>2014 (11) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252710</link>
    <description>Rule 57Q was construed broadly for the pre-16/03/95 period, so capital goods having direct or indirect nexus with manufacture could qualify for Modvat credit even before later notifications expressly enlarged the definition. Applying the binding principle in Jawahar Mills, the disputed items, including equipment, spare parts and handling machinery, were treated as covered by the pre-amendment definition because their use was connected with the manufacturing process. Failure to consider that precedent was a mistake apparent from the record, and the denial of credit on those items was unsustainable. The disputed items were therefore eligible for Modvat credit for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:17:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252710</link>
      <description>Rule 57Q was construed broadly for the pre-16/03/95 period, so capital goods having direct or indirect nexus with manufacture could qualify for Modvat credit even before later notifications expressly enlarged the definition. Applying the binding principle in Jawahar Mills, the disputed items, including equipment, spare parts and handling machinery, were treated as covered by the pre-amendment definition because their use was connected with the manufacturing process. Failure to consider that precedent was a mistake apparent from the record, and the denial of credit on those items was unsustainable. The disputed items were therefore eligible for Modvat credit for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>