<?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>2008 (1) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4466</link>
    <description>Goods used in effluent treatment, intermediate processing, auxiliary fabrication, boiler water treatment, and uninterrupted power supply were treated as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture under Rule 57A, because these functions formed an integral part of the production process. The items examined item-wise, including acid, gases, welding materials, transformer oil, and treatment chemicals, were therefore eligible for Modvat credit. The court also held that credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed under Rule 57Q rather than in the form contemplated by Rule 57A, since substantive entitlement depended on the actual use of the goods. The revenue challenge accordingly failed, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4466</link>
      <description>Goods used in effluent treatment, intermediate processing, auxiliary fabrication, boiler water treatment, and uninterrupted power supply were treated as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture under Rule 57A, because these functions formed an integral part of the production process. The items examined item-wise, including acid, gases, welding materials, transformer oil, and treatment chemicals, were therefore eligible for Modvat credit. The court also held that credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed under Rule 57Q rather than in the form contemplated by Rule 57A, since substantive entitlement depended on the actual use of the goods. The revenue challenge accordingly failed, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>