<?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>2010 (6) TMI 224 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78067</link>
    <description>Duty-paid inputs transferred between two registered units of the same manufacturer may still qualify for job-work treatment under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and the corresponding CENVAT framework where the statutory conditions for removal, processing, and return are satisfied. The fact that the processor is another unit of the same legal entity, rather than an outside party, does not by itself defeat the benefit. Where the inputs were taken on credit, moved with departmental permission, processed, returned as finished goods, and duty was discharged on the final products, denial of the exemption was unsustainable and the related demand, interest, and penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 224 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78067</link>
      <description>Duty-paid inputs transferred between two registered units of the same manufacturer may still qualify for job-work treatment under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and the corresponding CENVAT framework where the statutory conditions for removal, processing, and return are satisfied. The fact that the processor is another unit of the same legal entity, rather than an outside party, does not by itself defeat the benefit. Where the inputs were taken on credit, moved with departmental permission, processed, returned as finished goods, and duty was discharged on the final products, denial of the exemption was unsustainable and the related demand, interest, and penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>