<?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 265 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51076</link>
    <description>Rule 57Q allowed Modvat credit on capital goods used in the factory where the goods had a nexus with manufacturing activity, even if they did not directly produce the final product. On that basis, material handling equipment, electrical machinery, apparatus and cables were treated as eligible capital goods. Credit on cement, steel and allied structural items was not barred merely because the items formed part of an immovable structure; eligibility depended on their actual use in factory foundations, housing or protective structures. The immovability objection was rejected, but the factual question of actual use was left open for verification on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 265 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51076</link>
      <description>Rule 57Q allowed Modvat credit on capital goods used in the factory where the goods had a nexus with manufacturing activity, even if they did not directly produce the final product. On that basis, material handling equipment, electrical machinery, apparatus and cables were treated as eligible capital goods. Credit on cement, steel and allied structural items was not barred merely because the items formed part of an immovable structure; eligibility depended on their actual use in factory foundations, housing or protective structures. The immovability objection was rejected, but the factual question of actual use was left open for verification on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>