<?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>1996 (10) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48739</link>
    <description>Tool kits and jack assemblies supplied with motor vehicles, whose value was included in the assessable value and which were necessary to clear the vehicles in marketable form, were treated as inputs used in relation to manufacture and qualified for Modvat credit. The exclusion clause for tools did not apply because the articles were not used to produce, process, or effect a change in goods; being tools alone was insufficient to deny credit. The assessees could also rely on the CBEC instruction then in force, which bound departmental officers until withdrawn. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and credit was held admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48739</link>
      <description>Tool kits and jack assemblies supplied with motor vehicles, whose value was included in the assessable value and which were necessary to clear the vehicles in marketable form, were treated as inputs used in relation to manufacture and qualified for Modvat credit. The exclusion clause for tools did not apply because the articles were not used to produce, process, or effect a change in goods; being tools alone was insufficient to deny credit. The assessees could also rely on the CBEC instruction then in force, which bound departmental officers until withdrawn. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and credit was held admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>