<?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>1989 (11) TMI 131 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74985</link>
    <description>Proforma credit of duty-paid inputs used in manufacturing polyester fibre could not be denied merely because part of the input appeared in methanol or other residual matter arising from the process. Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were treated as materially identical in their relevant operation, and the later amendment plus the departmental circular clarified that credit was not to be reduced where input emerged in waste, refuse, or by-product. Methanol was described as an inevitable incident of the chemical reaction and not a separate product disqualifying the credit. Trade notice and Board clarification were treated as relevant aids in construing the exemption scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (11) TMI 131 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74985</link>
      <description>Proforma credit of duty-paid inputs used in manufacturing polyester fibre could not be denied merely because part of the input appeared in methanol or other residual matter arising from the process. Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were treated as materially identical in their relevant operation, and the later amendment plus the departmental circular clarified that credit was not to be reduced where input emerged in waste, refuse, or by-product. Methanol was described as an inevitable incident of the chemical reaction and not a separate product disqualifying the credit. Trade notice and Board clarification were treated as relevant aids in construing the exemption scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>