<?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 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51047</link>
    <description>Credit of duty on capital goods could be denied only where the goods were used exclusively in the manufacture of exempt goods or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty. The rule&#039;s language was treated as clear and unambiguous, and it did not permit a broader test based on predominant, substantial or principal use. On that construction, credit could not be denied merely because the capital goods were used mainly, but not exclusively, for exempt final products.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51047</link>
      <description>Credit of duty on capital goods could be denied only where the goods were used exclusively in the manufacture of exempt goods or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty. The rule&#039;s language was treated as clear and unambiguous, and it did not permit a broader test based on predominant, substantial or principal use. On that construction, credit could not be denied merely because the capital goods were used mainly, but not exclusively, for exempt final products.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>