<?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>2012 (1) TMI 155 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170399</link>
    <description>Teflon-coated glass fabric belt used to manufacture heritage flakes was treated as having an essential functional nexus with the manufacturing process, because it provided a non-stick, heat-resistant surface on which the material was processed and released. The majority viewed it as a replaceable consumable participating in manufacture and falling within the wider expression &quot;used in relation to manufacture&quot;, while the contrary view treated it as a mere carrier excluded as machinery or equipment. The third member agreed with the majority that it formed part of the manufacturing plant, so Modvat credit was allowable and the orders denying credit were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 16:15:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 155 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170399</link>
      <description>Teflon-coated glass fabric belt used to manufacture heritage flakes was treated as having an essential functional nexus with the manufacturing process, because it provided a non-stick, heat-resistant surface on which the material was processed and released. The majority viewed it as a replaceable consumable participating in manufacture and falling within the wider expression &quot;used in relation to manufacture&quot;, while the contrary view treated it as a mere carrier excluded as machinery or equipment. The third member agreed with the majority that it formed part of the manufacturing plant, so Modvat credit was allowable and the orders denying credit were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>