<?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>2003 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307889</link>
    <description>Credit under Rule 57Q could not be denied merely because the manufacturer did not own the capital goods. The applicable rule position, read with the amendment to Rule 57R(3), did not make ownership a necessary condition where moulds were acquired and used in the manufacturing process for job work. As the objection rested only on non-ownership, it failed on the rule as applicable to the period in question. Credit was therefore admissible, and the assessee&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 May 2023 16:47:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307889</link>
      <description>Credit under Rule 57Q could not be denied merely because the manufacturer did not own the capital goods. The applicable rule position, read with the amendment to Rule 57R(3), did not make ownership a necessary condition where moulds were acquired and used in the manufacturing process for job work. As the objection rested only on non-ownership, it failed on the rule as applicable to the period in question. Credit was therefore admissible, and the assessee&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>