<?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>2002 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51527</link>
    <description>Rule 57Q, as recast by Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.1997, treated installation of capital goods as a mandatory precondition for Modvat credit. Because the machinery was not shown to have been installed when credit was taken, and the assessee&#039;s materials did not establish prior installation, the statutory condition was not met and the credit could not be sustained. The consequence was that Modvat credit on the capital goods was held inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:28:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51527</link>
      <description>Rule 57Q, as recast by Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.1997, treated installation of capital goods as a mandatory precondition for Modvat credit. Because the machinery was not shown to have been installed when credit was taken, and the assessee&#039;s materials did not establish prior installation, the statutory condition was not met and the credit could not be sustained. The consequence was that Modvat credit on the capital goods was held inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>