<?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 (8) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80064</link>
    <description>Caustic soda recovered from spent caustic soda lye remained exempt under Notification No. 113/74-C.E. where duty had been paid on the original caustic soda, ownership of the spent lye continued with the originating factory, and the recovered material was actually returned to that factory. The presence of an intermediary did not defeat the exemption because the intermediary did not acquire ownership, and the documents showed that the lye and recovered concentrate belonged to and were returned to the original mill. The record therefore supported satisfaction of the notification&#039;s conditions, and the contrary view was untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:33:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80064</link>
      <description>Caustic soda recovered from spent caustic soda lye remained exempt under Notification No. 113/74-C.E. where duty had been paid on the original caustic soda, ownership of the spent lye continued with the originating factory, and the recovered material was actually returned to that factory. The presence of an intermediary did not defeat the exemption because the intermediary did not acquire ownership, and the documents showed that the lye and recovered concentrate belonged to and were returned to the original mill. The record therefore supported satisfaction of the notification&#039;s conditions, and the contrary view was untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>