<?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>1992 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82075</link>
    <description>Spent sulphuric acid emerging as a by-product in the manufacture of nitrobenzene and acid slurry was held not to answer the common parlance meaning of sulphuric acid under Chapter 28 because it contained only about 51% to 60% acid and lacked the characteristics of commercial sulphuric acid. As a distinct residue or by-product, and being sold and used as a separate chemical in fertilizer manufacture, it was classified under Heading 3823.00 as a chemical product. On the Modvat issue, credit on duty-paid sulphuric acid input could not be curtailed or reversed merely because only part of the input was chemically consumed in the sulphonation reaction; the assessee remained entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:22:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82075</link>
      <description>Spent sulphuric acid emerging as a by-product in the manufacture of nitrobenzene and acid slurry was held not to answer the common parlance meaning of sulphuric acid under Chapter 28 because it contained only about 51% to 60% acid and lacked the characteristics of commercial sulphuric acid. As a distinct residue or by-product, and being sold and used as a separate chemical in fertilizer manufacture, it was classified under Heading 3823.00 as a chemical product. On the Modvat issue, credit on duty-paid sulphuric acid input could not be curtailed or reversed merely because only part of the input was chemically consumed in the sulphonation reaction; the assessee remained entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>