<?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 (10) TMI 239 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52612</link>
    <description>Rule 57Q capital goods credit was applied to determine whether items received in the factory qualified for input credit. The analysis treated parts of electrical installation, quality testing equipment, raw material storage equipment, pipe lines and signalling equipment as covered because they were used in connection with manufacture and were necessary to the manufacturing process. Pollution control equipment was also treated as eligible, as it was an essential and integral part of safe and viable manufacture, especially for a highly toxic product. Credit on the disputed goods was therefore allowable where the statutory definition was satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:14:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 239 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52612</link>
      <description>Rule 57Q capital goods credit was applied to determine whether items received in the factory qualified for input credit. The analysis treated parts of electrical installation, quality testing equipment, raw material storage equipment, pipe lines and signalling equipment as covered because they were used in connection with manufacture and were necessary to the manufacturing process. Pollution control equipment was also treated as eligible, as it was an essential and integral part of safe and viable manufacture, especially for a highly toxic product. Credit on the disputed goods was therefore allowable where the statutory definition was satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>