<?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 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73216</link>
    <description>An intermediate textile product containing 54% polyester and 46% cotton, arising during manufacture of the final fabric, was treated as independently classifiable and dutiable under Item 19(I)(b) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The fact that the final fabric fell under Item 22 and that the intermediate product was captively consumed within the factory did not prevent levy, because amended Rules 9 and 49 were understood to treat in-factory removals for further manufacture as removals for duty purposes. The earlier Supreme Court ruling was read as addressing the final product only, not barring duty on a separately identifiable intermediate excisable good.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 13:35:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73216</link>
      <description>An intermediate textile product containing 54% polyester and 46% cotton, arising during manufacture of the final fabric, was treated as independently classifiable and dutiable under Item 19(I)(b) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The fact that the final fabric fell under Item 22 and that the intermediate product was captively consumed within the factory did not prevent levy, because amended Rules 9 and 49 were understood to treat in-factory removals for further manufacture as removals for duty purposes. The earlier Supreme Court ruling was read as addressing the final product only, not barring duty on a separately identifiable intermediate excisable good.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>