<?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>1986 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72347</link>
    <description>Iron castings manufactured from old iron scrap remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83 where a small proportion of steel scrap and allied materials was used only to improve product quality. The notification, as it stood before 1.3.84, did not require exclusive use of the listed raw materials, and the predominant character of the input remained iron scrap. A circular was read as supporting the view that technological necessity in using other metals did not by itself defeat the exemption. The later amendment by Notification No. 38/84 was treated as clarificatory or enlarging in scope, not as removing the earlier benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 17:10:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72347</link>
      <description>Iron castings manufactured from old iron scrap remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83 where a small proportion of steel scrap and allied materials was used only to improve product quality. The notification, as it stood before 1.3.84, did not require exclusive use of the listed raw materials, and the predominant character of the input remained iron scrap. A circular was read as supporting the view that technological necessity in using other metals did not by itself defeat the exemption. The later amendment by Notification No. 38/84 was treated as clarificatory or enlarging in scope, not as removing the earlier benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>