<?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 (10) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT  RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3620</link>
    <description>Rope asbestos, graphite asbestos and wire rope used in a cement plant were treated as capital goods or accessories eligible for Cenvat credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The items were used for sealing joints, ducts and chutes, and the wire rope functioned as a hoist in the raw mill, cement mill and packing plant for material handling. Because they supported maintenance and efficient operation of the manufacturing machinery and were integral to manufacturing activity, they could not be excluded merely because they were not the main production equipment. The assessee was therefore entitled to Cenvat credit on the disputed items.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT  RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3620</link>
      <description>Rope asbestos, graphite asbestos and wire rope used in a cement plant were treated as capital goods or accessories eligible for Cenvat credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The items were used for sealing joints, ducts and chutes, and the wire rope functioned as a hoist in the raw mill, cement mill and packing plant for material handling. Because they supported maintenance and efficient operation of the manufacturing machinery and were integral to manufacturing activity, they could not be excluded merely because they were not the main production equipment. The assessee was therefore entitled to Cenvat credit on the disputed items.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>