<?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>2001 (7) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50707</link>
    <description>Materials such as mild steel channels, angles, plates and joists used only to erect the civil structure and foundation for a forging hammer machine were not treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The goods merely provided structural support and did not participate in the manufacturing process of the final product; the machine itself was a bought-out item, and the assessee was not manufacturing it. Modvat credit was therefore denied, and the disallowance was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:07:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50707</link>
      <description>Materials such as mild steel channels, angles, plates and joists used only to erect the civil structure and foundation for a forging hammer machine were not treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The goods merely provided structural support and did not participate in the manufacturing process of the final product; the machine itself was a bought-out item, and the assessee was not manufacturing it. Modvat credit was therefore denied, and the disallowance was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>