<?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 (5) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73758</link>
    <description>Duty on Carbon Electrode Paste could not be sustained without clear findings on whether the goods manufactured between 1-3-1975 and 29-4-1975 were cleared, consumed outside the factory, or captively consumed only after the smelter plant became operational in May 1975. The record suggested the plant and power supply began in May 1975, making earlier captive consumption doubtful, and if consumption occurred after Notification No. 118/75 came into force, deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49 and the notification-based exemption had to be examined on that date. The demand also required an explicit finding on limitation. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:29:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73758</link>
      <description>Duty on Carbon Electrode Paste could not be sustained without clear findings on whether the goods manufactured between 1-3-1975 and 29-4-1975 were cleared, consumed outside the factory, or captively consumed only after the smelter plant became operational in May 1975. The record suggested the plant and power supply began in May 1975, making earlier captive consumption doubtful, and if consumption occurred after Notification No. 118/75 came into force, deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49 and the notification-based exemption had to be examined on that date. The demand also required an explicit finding on limitation. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>