<?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>1987 (1) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72697</link>
    <description>Cryolite, aluminium fluoride, borax and lime used in aluminium manufacture were treated as raw materials for exemption under Notification No. 201/79-CE, as amended, because &quot;raw material&quot; was read in its functional and commercial sense and covered indispensable inputs consumed in the manufacturing process even if they did not become part of the final product. Demand and credit reversal action under Section 11A was held unsustainable because that provision did not authorise recovery in the manner adopted, and the notification could not be administered as a proforma credit scheme under Rule 56A. The departmental approach was therefore outside the scope of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 14:20:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72697</link>
      <description>Cryolite, aluminium fluoride, borax and lime used in aluminium manufacture were treated as raw materials for exemption under Notification No. 201/79-CE, as amended, because &quot;raw material&quot; was read in its functional and commercial sense and covered indispensable inputs consumed in the manufacturing process even if they did not become part of the final product. Demand and credit reversal action under Section 11A was held unsustainable because that provision did not authorise recovery in the manner adopted, and the notification could not be administered as a proforma credit scheme under Rule 56A. The departmental approach was therefore outside the scope of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>