<?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>2005 (3) TMI 779 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184601</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was admissible on proof-machined forged shafts received for use in mill rollers, even though further machining or refining was needed before installation. The determining point was that the goods were received for intended use in the machinery, and the additional processing only made them suitable for fitting. On that basis, the need for subsequent machining did not justify denial of credit, and the refusal of credit was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:15:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 779 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184601</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was admissible on proof-machined forged shafts received for use in mill rollers, even though further machining or refining was needed before installation. The determining point was that the goods were received for intended use in the machinery, and the additional processing only made them suitable for fitting. On that basis, the need for subsequent machining did not justify denial of credit, and the refusal of credit was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>