<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1211 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264543</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was considered for dumpers and loaders used in captive mines forming part of an integrated cement unit, and credit was treated as admissible because the mines and factory were within the same premises and under single registration. Credit was also allowed for emitting electrodes, steel casing and classifier housing as parts of capital goods, and for steel structures used to support machinery, as these were treated as eligible components or supporting structures under the modvat scheme. Credit on steel wires was denied because the same item had already been held ineligible in the assessee&#039;s own case and no basis for departure was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:18:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1211 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264543</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was considered for dumpers and loaders used in captive mines forming part of an integrated cement unit, and credit was treated as admissible because the mines and factory were within the same premises and under single registration. Credit was also allowed for emitting electrodes, steel casing and classifier housing as parts of capital goods, and for steel structures used to support machinery, as these were treated as eligible components or supporting structures under the modvat scheme. Credit on steel wires was denied because the same item had already been held ineligible in the assessee&#039;s own case and no basis for departure was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>