<?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>1996 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84767</link>
    <description>Runners and risers arising during the manufacture of steel ingots were treated as materials used in the making of ingots, not as ingots themselves. The relevant exemption notification indicated that such by-products, like skull scrap, were distinct from finished ingots, and the record did not show that trade or industry regarded them as ingots or as steel melting scrap during the material period. Later administrative views and subsequent statutory references were held irrelevant to that period. On that basis, runners and risers were not chargeable under Tariff Item 26, and the exemption claim was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84767</link>
      <description>Runners and risers arising during the manufacture of steel ingots were treated as materials used in the making of ingots, not as ingots themselves. The relevant exemption notification indicated that such by-products, like skull scrap, were distinct from finished ingots, and the record did not show that trade or industry regarded them as ingots or as steel melting scrap during the material period. Later administrative views and subsequent statutory references were held irrelevant to that period. On that basis, runners and risers were not chargeable under Tariff Item 26, and the exemption claim was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>