<?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>2005 (4) TMI 200 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54352</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was denied for plates, plain plates and M.S. flat used as runners or supportive structures because they were general-purpose goods without proven special design, specification or direct nexus with capital goods. Credit on welding electrodes was also rejected since they fell outside the relevant capital goods definition and were not shown to be part of, or accessories to, any qualifying machinery. By contrast, proof machined forging used in the mill house to move heavy rollers was treated as a part or accessory of machinery used in manufacture, so Modvat credit was allowed and the penalty was set aside. The principle applied was that function as a part or accessory, not mere classification, determines eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:15:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 200 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54352</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was denied for plates, plain plates and M.S. flat used as runners or supportive structures because they were general-purpose goods without proven special design, specification or direct nexus with capital goods. Credit on welding electrodes was also rejected since they fell outside the relevant capital goods definition and were not shown to be part of, or accessories to, any qualifying machinery. By contrast, proof machined forging used in the mill house to move heavy rollers was treated as a part or accessory of machinery used in manufacture, so Modvat credit was allowed and the penalty was set aside. The principle applied was that function as a part or accessory, not mere classification, determines eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>