<?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 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82367</link>
    <description>Printed, lacquered and printed-and-lacquered aluminium containers manufactured before 19-6-1980 were not brought within manufacture by the amended tariff and amended definition in Section 2(f), so they did not become excisable merely because they were cleared later. Manufacture remained the taxable event, and Rule 9A(ii) affected only the stage of collection and the rate on removal where goods were already liable to duty. As the containers were not dutiable at manufacture, denial of Notification No. 93/80 relief solely because clearance occurred after the amendment was unsustainable. The containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 therefore remained outside duty liability, with consequential relief available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:21:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82367</link>
      <description>Printed, lacquered and printed-and-lacquered aluminium containers manufactured before 19-6-1980 were not brought within manufacture by the amended tariff and amended definition in Section 2(f), so they did not become excisable merely because they were cleared later. Manufacture remained the taxable event, and Rule 9A(ii) affected only the stage of collection and the rate on removal where goods were already liable to duty. As the containers were not dutiable at manufacture, denial of Notification No. 93/80 relief solely because clearance occurred after the amendment was unsustainable. The containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 therefore remained outside duty liability, with consequential relief available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>