<?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 (9) TMI 256 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52543</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on a grinding machine claimed as capital goods for research and development use was held inadmissible because eligibility had to be assessed at the time the machine was received. On the facts found, the machine was used only as a prototype for research and development when credit was taken, and it was not then employed in manufacturing the assessee&#039;s dutiable final products. A later assertion that the machine was subsequently installed for manufacture of other dutiable goods did not cure the defect or revive the claim, especially where no satisfactory explanation was given for its earlier non-production before the lower authority. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:58:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 256 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52543</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on a grinding machine claimed as capital goods for research and development use was held inadmissible because eligibility had to be assessed at the time the machine was received. On the facts found, the machine was used only as a prototype for research and development when credit was taken, and it was not then employed in manufacturing the assessee&#039;s dutiable final products. A later assertion that the machine was subsequently installed for manufacture of other dutiable goods did not cure the defect or revive the claim, especially where no satisfactory explanation was given for its earlier non-production before the lower authority. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>