<?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 (4) TMI 72 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49833</link>
    <description>Calibration oil used to test nozzle holders after manufacture was disputed as an eligible Modvat input. The assessee argued that calibration testing formed an integral part of manufacture, so credit should not be denied on the oil. The department maintained that the oil was used only for a post-manufacture functional test and therefore did not qualify as an input. The extracted text records these competing positions but contains no final adjudication on eligibility for credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:02:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 72 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49833</link>
      <description>Calibration oil used to test nozzle holders after manufacture was disputed as an eligible Modvat input. The assessee argued that calibration testing formed an integral part of manufacture, so credit should not be denied on the oil. The department maintained that the oil was used only for a post-manufacture functional test and therefore did not qualify as an input. The extracted text records these competing positions but contains no final adjudication on eligibility for credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>