<?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 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85470</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on sulphuric acid could not be denied merely because the input emerged in the manufacturing process as spent sulphuric acid, a by-product or waste product. The applicable rule protected inputs used in manufacture, and the distinction between an input being used and being fully exhausted was material. Where the acid was used in the process and only the residue or emergent product remained, credit remained admissible. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:15:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85470</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on sulphuric acid could not be denied merely because the input emerged in the manufacturing process as spent sulphuric acid, a by-product or waste product. The applicable rule protected inputs used in manufacture, and the distinction between an input being used and being fully exhausted was material. Where the acid was used in the process and only the residue or emergent product remained, credit remained admissible. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>