<?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>2003 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52170</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was recognised for explosives used in limestone excavation because inputs used in relation to manufacture are not confined to factory premises, and for tyres and spares of dumpers used as material handling equipment within the factory. Credit was also allowed on warranty replacement parts imported on payment of countervailing duty. Credit could not be granted merely on photocopies; original duty-paying documents were required for verification. Spares of a ropeway used only to bring limestone from the mines to the factory were held ineligible, as the system was not capital goods used within the factory for manufacture. Penalty was set aside because the dispute turned on eligibility interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:11:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52170</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was recognised for explosives used in limestone excavation because inputs used in relation to manufacture are not confined to factory premises, and for tyres and spares of dumpers used as material handling equipment within the factory. Credit was also allowed on warranty replacement parts imported on payment of countervailing duty. Credit could not be granted merely on photocopies; original duty-paying documents were required for verification. Spares of a ropeway used only to bring limestone from the mines to the factory were held ineligible, as the system was not capital goods used within the factory for manufacture. Penalty was set aside because the dispute turned on eligibility interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>