https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196585 Capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required reconsideration in light of existing case law and the effect of a transitory amendment that omitted and later restored the goods to the definition. For the intervening period, the restored notification was viewed as capable of liberal application so the goods could be treated as remaining within Rule 57Q, but the controversy was not fully examined on the remaining disputed issues. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication, with both sides to be heard and a reasoned decision to be passed. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:40:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196585 Capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required reconsideration in light of existing case law and the effect of a transitory amendment that omitted and later restored the goods to the definition. For the intervening period, the restored notification was viewed as capable of liberal application so the goods could be treated as remaining within Rule 57Q, but the controversy was not fully examined on the remaining disputed issues. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication, with both sides to be heard and a reasoned decision to be passed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196585