<?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>2006 (1) TMI 11 - Appellate Tribunal Chennai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403</link>
    <description>Plastic crates and PP sheet trays used only for storing and handling raw materials, sub-assemblies and finished goods within the factory were not &quot;inputs&quot; under the Cenvat Credit Rules because they functioned as material handling equipment and were not consumed or substantially used up in manufacture. The Tribunal held that the definition of input could not be extended to goods ordinarily treated as capital goods, and it followed its earlier view on similar handling materials while distinguishing cases where the items were consumed in production or lost utility during use. Cenvat credit on this basis was therefore not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 11 - Appellate Tribunal Chennai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403</link>
      <description>Plastic crates and PP sheet trays used only for storing and handling raw materials, sub-assemblies and finished goods within the factory were not &quot;inputs&quot; under the Cenvat Credit Rules because they functioned as material handling equipment and were not consumed or substantially used up in manufacture. The Tribunal held that the definition of input could not be extended to goods ordinarily treated as capital goods, and it followed its earlier view on similar handling materials while distinguishing cases where the items were consumed in production or lost utility during use. Cenvat credit on this basis was therefore not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>