<?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>2000 (5) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48812</link>
    <description>Lubricating oils and greases used to keep manufacturing machinery functioning smoothly were treated as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture and were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A during the relevant period, because lubrication was integral to the manufacturing process and not expressly excluded. Credit taken on the strength of the original invoice was not admissible where the assessee had not first satisfied the proper officer that the duplicate invoice was lost in transit. A declaration made under the capital goods provision was not, by itself, a valid ground to deny credit where substantive eligibility otherwise existed; denial could not rest solely on the form of declaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 12:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48812</link>
      <description>Lubricating oils and greases used to keep manufacturing machinery functioning smoothly were treated as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture and were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A during the relevant period, because lubrication was integral to the manufacturing process and not expressly excluded. Credit taken on the strength of the original invoice was not admissible where the assessee had not first satisfied the proper officer that the duplicate invoice was lost in transit. A declaration made under the capital goods provision was not, by itself, a valid ground to deny credit where substantive eligibility otherwise existed; denial could not rest solely on the form of declaration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>