<?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>1994 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85131</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on tin plates and sheets used to manufacture metal containers for packing vanaspati was held admissible because the containers formed a distinct stage in the manufacturing process and qualified as intermediate products under Rule 57D. Packing was treated as incidental or ancillary to manufacture under Section 2(f), and the fact that the containers were exempt when made without power did not exclude them from the MODVAT scheme. The absence of a chapter note comparable to Chapter 33 was not treated as material, since vanaspati could not be marketed without packing. The Revenue&#039;s reference was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:26:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85131</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on tin plates and sheets used to manufacture metal containers for packing vanaspati was held admissible because the containers formed a distinct stage in the manufacturing process and qualified as intermediate products under Rule 57D. Packing was treated as incidental or ancillary to manufacture under Section 2(f), and the fact that the containers were exempt when made without power did not exclude them from the MODVAT scheme. The absence of a chapter note comparable to Chapter 33 was not treated as material, since vanaspati could not be marketed without packing. The Revenue&#039;s reference was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>