<?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>1988 (4) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73674</link>
    <description>Single ply straw boards captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of multiple ply straw boards were treated as the same excisable commodity under the tariff description of paper and paper board including straw board. The Tribunal held that the process of pasting single ply sheets together did not create a distinct product such as paste board, so duty could not be levied twice on the same commodity merely because of an internal manufacturing stage. For the relevant period after Notification No. 187/83, in-house consumption of goods for manufacture of another commodity falling under the same tariff item satisfied the proviso to Rule 9, and Rule 49(4) supported the same position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73674</link>
      <description>Single ply straw boards captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of multiple ply straw boards were treated as the same excisable commodity under the tariff description of paper and paper board including straw board. The Tribunal held that the process of pasting single ply sheets together did not create a distinct product such as paste board, so duty could not be levied twice on the same commodity merely because of an internal manufacturing stage. For the relevant period after Notification No. 187/83, in-house consumption of goods for manufacture of another commodity falling under the same tariff item satisfied the proviso to Rule 9, and Rule 49(4) supported the same position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>