<?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 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51534</link>
    <description>Rule 57Q capital goods credit was confined to items used in producing or processing goods or in bringing about a change necessary for manufacture. A truck loading machine used only after packed cement was ready for dispatch was treated as a post-manufacturing item, so credit was denied. A transformer, together with its spares and tyres for material handling equipment, satisfied the user test and credit was allowed. An ESP hopper support structure was only a supporting structure, not capital goods or an eligible spare or accessory, so credit was denied. The penalty was set aside because the dispute turned on interpretation of capital goods eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:39:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51534</link>
      <description>Rule 57Q capital goods credit was confined to items used in producing or processing goods or in bringing about a change necessary for manufacture. A truck loading machine used only after packed cement was ready for dispatch was treated as a post-manufacturing item, so credit was denied. A transformer, together with its spares and tyres for material handling equipment, satisfied the user test and credit was allowed. An ESP hopper support structure was only a supporting structure, not capital goods or an eligible spare or accessory, so credit was denied. The penalty was set aside because the dispute turned on interpretation of capital goods eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>